Euangelion - Latest Comments

Re: The Right Motive

Phillip Cary — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:06:38 -0000

Yes, I devote a whole chapter to this issue in Good News for Anxious Christians.

Re: The Right Motive

pduggie — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:02:15 -0000

You have a book about that, no? (Love it BTW)

Re: Romans 12 and Poverty

bill victor — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:10:56 -0000

And perhaps the giving, leading and caring gifts mentioned in 12.8 help facilitate the church providing for the needs of the poor.

Re: Romans 12 and Poverty

S Wu — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:32:30 -0000

Thank you for posting this, Mike.

Re: Eric Metaxas on Tolerance

Robert — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:26:32 -0000

I guess that excuses him from scholarly engagement then.
Fair enough.

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

Robert — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:21:30 -0000

Great use of token feminist and postcolonial perspectives in order to justify the exclusion of gays and lesbians. What a highly effective rhetorical strategy! With regards to (4), aside from the fantastic misappropriation of Gen 1:26-27, I thought the following statement was most revealing: "For too long the church has cast God’s image, and thus God’s representatives, as male and I am a beneficiary of the long-fought battle to reclaim the 'gender-fullness' of God." We might extend this argument that for too long the "sexual-fullness" of God has been maligned, and so, God is for some strange reason imaged as heterosexual (or worse, asexual). This is no doubt made easier because of the patriarchal cultural contexts in which the texts were produced.
The post cleverly concludes: "However as an Anglican scholar committed to the truth of Scripture and with Jesus as the North Star, I can find no place in Scripture within which the church can find room to move on this issue." How about starting with Jesus who, according to the honor and shame cultural-rhetoric of his day, was a sexual deviant? Also remember when he advocates the dissolution of traditional family ties? There are plenty more places to go once you are 'actually' open to the witness of Scripture. If you can't find any 'queer' examples of sexuality in the Bible then you're not looking hard enough!

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

Jesse T Reese — Mon, 14 May 2012 10:59:17 -0000

Good job inventing unsaid words and demeaning the vast majority of world Christianity.

I suspect that we can all stop pursuing Christlikeness, everyone, ChristianDJ has it all figured out. All that it takes is the invention of a convenient Christ that looks an awful lot like what we see in the mirror every morning.

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

James Korsmo — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:44:58 -0000

Mike, thanks for your thoughts. I've just been reading John Stott's 1975 gem, Christian Mission, which has been continually overwhelming me with its biblical wisdom. And in his third chapter, on dialogue, he has some extremely insightful comments that fit perfectly with your points 1 and 2 (I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't share specific quotes, I'm afraid), regarding the shape and implications of the gospel, particularly in light of the tension between the evangelical and ecumenical movements in his day. Even though I can't quote it at length, I couldn't resist the opportunity to plug this fantastic and amazingly timely book.

Re: The Right Motive

Phillip Cary — Mon, 14 May 2012 08:00:44 -0000

Students at my college often try to make decisions by discerning their own motives. But this is getting things backwards. What we need to discern is not our motives but the difference between good and bad (that's the wisdom Solomon prays for in 1 Kings 3:9). If you're trying to do what's good rather than bad, then your motivations are good enough to be getting on with. It is very freeing to recognize this.

Re: Gospels Quiz

Michael Bird — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:28:35 -0000

Answers are 1c, 2c, 3c, 4b, 5d, 6a, 7b (though disputed), 8a, 9d, 10c, 11b, 12b.

Re: The Right Motive

Jan Turoň — Sun, 13 May 2012 14:18:48 -0000

Our motives are subjective (by definition), so our desire to judge anything (including our motives) must be also subjective. As you write (First, Second and Third), objective God can not be distilled from it, so we can't be sure (or else we would have proof of God, not faith in God), at least with this attitude.

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

MikeW — Sun, 13 May 2012 13:11:40 -0000

You are right that churches have wrongly demeaned homosexuals. And that needs to be openly condemned. However, I don't think it's fair or accurate to equate a Christian sexual ethic with racism. It's just another form of demonizing those whom we disagree with.

Re: Happy Mother’s Day – USA & Australia

30poulets — Sun, 13 May 2012 11:47:11 -0000

If any mother reads French, you will enjoy the following book.
Quand une mère pleure son coeur, by Kiki de montreal
Available by ebook at a ridiculous price, the stories are more than worth it. They will make you cry, smile, because you might have live the same thing...
I discovered it on amazon.com in the ebook section.

Re: The Right Motive

Chris Tilling — Sun, 13 May 2012 10:01:04 -0000

Thanks for this helpful post, Joel, love the link with the Rabbis

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

ChristianDJ — Sun, 13 May 2012 09:42:44 -0000

"The pursuit of unity with Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches will be irreversibly damaged if the ordination of practicing homosexuals to the episcopacy continues."

Good job! It's more important to pursue unity than to act like Christ. Excluding gay people is hurtful and harmful to Gods people.

These Churches we're created for political reasons. Good luck with unity!!!

Re: Eric Metaxas on Tolerance

Caine Das — Sat, 12 May 2012 21:37:04 -0000

I think one point is all this talk about the Family being under attack is not true. If you are heterosexual, then be heterosexual. If you want to have a marriage between one man and one woman, then do so and be happy. I don't see any legislation supported by gay people saying let's allow heterosexual couples. Where is the gay legislated amendments asking courts to stop having people swear on the Bible, the legislation asking for no prayers before sessions of the House or Senate? When the argument is always bashing one side, then yeah, it sure does start to sound like bullying. Maybe if the gay people would all get together and really start attacking the other side, then you would realize what it feels like for them. You might be showing them the way, let bullying meet bullying in other words. Be careful crying wolf!!

Re: Eric Metaxas on Tolerance

Michael Dixon — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:35:47 -0000

If you even so much as whiper that marriage should by law be only recognized when undertaken by a man and a two man, you are a bully.

Re: Eric Metaxas on Tolerance

Caine Das — Sat, 12 May 2012 14:21:56 -0000

It amazes me when those who generate the laws against others using their own religion say they are the real victims. What a farce. Your Lord never said to carry out any political agenda. You Christians should spend more time working on the 'Kingdom of God' within you and within others. Your politicking will spell the end of your religion as quick as anything. Not that Christianity will ever vanish, just that your Churches will, the people who have stopped coming to your services are sick to their stomach of your whining hate speech.

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

Bex — Sat, 12 May 2012 12:17:18 -0000

Hey, all we have to do is enforce "separate but equal," because that always works out so well.

Re: Eric Metaxas on Tolerance

Celtic Tiger — Sat, 12 May 2012 10:16:36 -0000

So to all those "true" Christians or whatever you call yourselves as members of "God's Army"...if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. And while you're busy "defending traditional marriage", maybe you can work on the ever-rising divorce rates, particularly among evangelicals and other righteous folk. Check out Pew Research for the facts. I know, I know...Pew is probably a liberal, commie-Islamic outfit.

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

Taylorz28 — Sat, 12 May 2012 09:53:13 -0000

Curiously, one of the advertsiements I see on ths webpage is promoting Mormonism.

Re: Anglicans, Rom 1:26-27, and Homosexuality

David McKay — Sat, 12 May 2012 02:17:23 -0000

Michael, is there something missing from this sentence in point 2, or could it be reworded?
"But listening to gay and lesbian experience cannot be one way. "

Does it mean " ... cannot be the only way?"

Re: Book Notice: Journeys of Faith

Jesse T Reese — Fri, 11 May 2012 12:29:17 -0000

Treating Anglicanism as distinct seems appropriate to me. It isn't that they AREN'T Protestant exactly, but they are unique, and Anglo-Catholics of any stripe would strongly disagree with characterizing the tradition as inherently a part of the Reformation. We could argue about "true" Anglican identity, but really, it is quite a pointless discussion. Anglicanism (IMO of course) can only best be described as a conversation on reform within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church tradition, and for that reason the journey is unique from that of normative evangelical Protestantism.

Re: Pastoral Reflections on Homophobia

Basil — Fri, 11 May 2012 10:26:38 -0000

The whole "ex-gay" thing is a ruse based on the published study of Richard Spitzer in 2001, which stated that in some circumstances highly motivated (usually religious) individuals can sometimes change their sexual orientation after years of counseling/therapy. In the decade after, "ex-gay" went from being a quack, fringe phenomenon, to big, lucrative industry, sprung up, fueled by "Christian counseling" groups, and parents who dragged their gay kids to "therapy" to be "cured". Spitzer has now repudiated his study -- he said there was no proper screening of his subjects, nor follow - up to see if they really did "change" from gay to straight. Lots of them did not -- the therapy apparently did them real harm. That is why the American Psychiatric Association and the medical community generally are coming to view "conversion" therapy as really harmful - leaving its patients more vulnerable to depression, anxiety and suicide. Of course if you hate gay people, having them kill themselves is probably not a bad thing (at least judging from the vitriol heaped on gay people by loving Christians -- see the comments posted here).

There is a cultural component to sexual orientation -- if you are in an unaccepting culture, you are unlikely to live as openly gay. Just ask any gay Ugandan (or a gay Utahan). And some people have a more fluid sexual orientation -- maybe they are more bisexual than gay or lesbian. Every interview I have seen with "ex-gay" persons, they talk about how they are still gay, but they keep it bottled up inside. To each his/her own.

But to compare the questioning of ex-gays with the systemic violence, and legal and social discrimination that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons face every day is both a false equivalence, and is really callous. No one was ever "ex-gay-bashed", or fired from their job, or turned out from their church, or driven to suicide for being "ex-gay".

Re: Eric Metaxas on Tolerance

MikeW — Fri, 11 May 2012 07:24:40 -0000

Mike, I do hope you will be removing this comment soon.