Jump to content
Burl

NT Wright on women preachers

Recommended Posts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good find, I enjoyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

Good find, I enjoyed it.

This is progressive Christianity with a small p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 1:31 PM, Burl said:

Good find, still reading it but food for thought and careful consideration.

The idea of lament is a new, an interesting one, for me given my take on theodicy. However the idea of weeping at the unfairness speaks volumes although the cry of why God has forsaken us, does not speak to me.

Much to consider, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thormas said:

Burl,

What is your take on Wright and on Christian lamentation?

I find Wright too detached and a bit verbose.  Too intellectual.

Lament is a type of prayer.  A prayer for protection, a prayer for understanding.

Christ is how the impassable God experienced human pain and suffering, so one would expect to find differences between the OT and the NT.

Just realized this as I was composing this, but this comparison is interesting.  I immediately think of Job compared to the martyrs but haven’t had time to really pursue that thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Burl said:

I find Wright too detached and a bit verbose.  Too intellectual.

Lament is a type of prayer.  A prayer for protection, a prayer for understanding.

Christ is how the impassable God experienced human pain and suffering, so one would expect to find differences between the OT and the NT.

I never mind an intellectual being a bit verbose, seems to come with the territory. And I do like those who speak about theology and the Bible to be intellectual - as opposed to the opposite.

I have to finish reading as I am not familiar with lamentation.

 

We seem to differ on the relationship of Jesus and God but that is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In the interview, Wright states  "......the whole biblical tradition of lament — lament without a note of penitence because, at the moment, there’s nothing to repent of."  In my experience, this is true and rightly said: we meet crisis, sickness, death and there is indeed lamentation but there is nothing for which the sufferer must or should repent (nor is there an acceptance that 'God did it and could have prevented it.'). Herein is mystery and it seems the happenstance of creation.

Good find.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

In the interview, Wright states  "......the whole biblical tradition of lament — lament without a note of penitence because, at the moment, there’s nothing to repent of."  In my experience, this is true and rightly said: we meet crisis, sickness, death and there is indeed lamentation but there is nothing for which the sufferer must or should repent (nor is there an acceptance that 'God did it and could have prevented it.'). Herein is mystery and it seems the happenstance of creation.

Good find.

Wright is rarely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burl said:

Wright is rarely wrong.

Also well said - even though he is verbose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, thormas said:

Also well said - even though he is verbose.

You asked my take on lamentations, and I like to simplify.  Wright is verbose compared to me, but he is a scholar and a genius and I am not.  
 

I do not criticize Wright .  I just have a more mystical and less academic viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burl said:

I do not criticize Wright .  I just have a more mystical and less academic viewpoint.

When time permits, I would be interested in your more mystical take on lamentation (or anything else). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thormas said:

When time permits, I would be interested in your more mystical take on lamentation (or anything else). 

Never really thought much about lamentation until this article.

Right now I gotta find out more about this visible comet.  Never saw one before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 4:50 PM, Burl said:

This is progressive Christianity with a small p.

Hi,

I'm wondering why you say "This is progressive Christianity with a small p"?. . . . Just asking.

This N.T. Wright video popped up after I watched the one that you posted. It's on the same subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSZPyZFWQI0

I thought it was pretty good, at least 80 or 90 % good. Myself, I pretty much believe in evolution into Christ and don't hold much to a literal understanding of the creation stories in Geneses. Just like people didn't need to know that the earth is round in order to be "saved", they/we don't  need to know exactly how human creation has taken place.

I also tend to think that the reasons that there is pain in childbirth are because the human skull has evolved to be so large, as well as because, since we stand upright, women's muscular development has evolved  to accommodate all this.

Myself, what I pretty much think we need to be "saved" from is our evolutionary mixed-up-ness and perhaps even negative-ness. I do think that we can "evolve into eternity".

Thanks for reading

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

..........Myself, I pretty much believe in evolution into Christ and don't hold much to a literal understanding of the creation stories in Geneses. Just like people didn't need to know that the earth is round in order to be "saved", they/we don't  need to know exactly how human creation has taken place.

Myself, what I pretty much think we need to be "saved" from is our evolutionary mixed-up-ness and perhaps even negative-ness. I do think that we can "evolve into eternity".

Good to 'see' you again.

I no longer phrase it as 'evolution into Christ' for the simple reason that evolution seems to suggest a natural growth and I think human movement into Christ (image & likeness of God) is a response to God. In other words, without God, there would be no movement, no natural evolution to him. It is not a built-in, rather it is a response.

Not sure what 'evolutionary mixed-up-ness' is but I am curious.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Hi,

I'm wondering why you say "This is progressive Christianity with a small p"?. . . . Just asking.

This N.T. Wright video popped up after I watched the one that you posted. It's on the same subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSZPyZFWQI0

I thought it was pretty good, at least 80 or 90 % good. Myself, I pretty much believe in evolution into Christ and don't hold much to a literal understanding of the creation stories in Geneses. Just like people didn't need to know that the earth is round in order to be "saved", they/we don't  need to know exactly how human creation has taken place.

I also tend to think that the reasons that there is pain in childbirth are because the human skull has evolved to be so large, as well as because, since we stand upright, women's muscular development has evolved  to accommodate all this.

Myself, what I pretty much think we need to be "saved" from is our evolutionary mixed-up-ness and perhaps even negative-ness. I do think that we can "evolve into eternity".

Thanks for reading

 

Small p progressive Christianity is a generic term.   Capital P Progressive Christianity.com is a specific theology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

Good to 'see' you again.

 

Hi, Thanks for saying so. Good to 'see' you too, as well as the other folks who regularly post here

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I no longer phrase it as 'evolution into Christ' for the simple reason that evolution seems to suggest a natural growth and I think human movement into Christ (image & likeness of God) is a response to God. In other words, without God, there would be no movement, no natural evolution to him. It is not a built-in, rather it is a response.

 

I've been thinking about what you might mean by "a response to God". I'm thinking it might be a response to life, or true life, which is God. It's recognizing that this is "true life" that we as evolutionary beings need to see. This is where we sometimes stumble and get confused.
 

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Not sure what 'evolutionary mixed-up-ness' is but I am curious.

 

I guess I'm thinking about something like the "survival of the fittest" mentality. This is ok if one also includes psychological and spiritual fitness, but usually it means something like survival of the biggest  or the most fearsome. Nature can be beautiful, even very beautiful, but it also has it's not so great side. If one looks at our closest non-human cousins the chimps as well as other animals, one sees this alpha male, alpha female, top dog, chicken-pecking-order thing going on. I've also seen some of a like kind of stuff going on among humans. I personally feel this is our evolutionary "mixed-up-ness". Where it might originally be survival orientated, nower days it could even lead to our partial or total destruction.

For myself, I find that evolution into Christ, and/or the Christ Spirit to be the answer for me. (don't know how much this is also true for others, but it "works" for me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

Small p progressive Christianity is a generic term.   Capital P Progressive Christianity.com is a specific theology.

I myself haven't found Progressive Christianity with a capital P all that specific in it's theology. I've found that among people who are part of Progressive Christianity (cap P) there is a wide variety of ideas and outlooks. I think it's great that they/we can all come together even with all our differences an unique ideas, but as far as "P"rogressive Christianity is concerned, I don't find it to be too tightly or definitely defined.

Thanks for your answer/reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I've been thinking about what you might mean by "a response to God". I'm thinking it might be a response to life, or true life, which is God. It's recognizing that this is "true life" that we as evolutionary beings need to see. This is where we sometimes stumble and get confused.
 

It comes from a better appreciation of the immanence of God in that I believe that God is active in creation, specifically calling us to fulfillment and giving us the courage/the power (through love) to response and grow. And all this is 'indirect' in that God does this in and through humanity (so it is a bit hidden). 

So, not just a response to life but a belief that Life itself both calls and enables (empowers) us to respond (so not a natural evolution) and become Human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I myself haven't found Progressive Christianity with a capital P all that specific in it's theology. I've found that among people who are part of Progressive Christianity (cap P) there is a wide variety of ideas and outlooks. I think it's great that they/we can all come together even with all our differences an unique ideas, but as far as "P"rogressive Christianity is concerned, I don't find it to be too tightly or definitely defined.

Thanks for your answer/reply

I agree as it seems that Progressive Christianity is all over the place - perhaps that is good but also a bit hard to present to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I guess I'm thinking about something like the "survival of the fittest" mentality. This is ok if one also includes psychological and spiritual fitness, but usually it means something like survival of the biggest  or the most fearsome. Nature can be beautiful, even very beautiful, but it also has it's not so great side. If one looks at our closest non-human cousins the chimps as well as other animals, one sees this alpha male, alpha female, top dog, chicken-pecking-order thing going on. I've also seen some of a like kind of stuff going on among humans. I personally feel this is our evolutionary "mixed-up-ness". Where it might originally be survival orientated, nower days it could even lead to our partial or total destruction.

For myself, I find that evolution into Christ, and/or the Christ Spirit to be the answer for me. (don't know how much this is also true for others, but it "works" for me).

I follow you. I guess that someone else might define that mixed-up-ness as sin and the 'overcoming' of sin is the decision to not allow might to make right and even extend to the caring for those who are smaller and weaker - in other words a choice for love. And as you said and the religious person might agree: sin leads to destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree as it seems that Progressive Christianity is all over the place - perhaps that is good but also a bit hard to present to others.

I’ve had this discussion with Joseph.  If I remember correctly he said they tried to avoid all dogma.  My argument was that is substituting one dogma for another.

The 8 steps are indeed dogmatic.  They are put forth as truth without sufficient rational support.

I think most progressive Christians reject many of the 8 points of Progressive Christianity.com. 

PC is an Episcopal mission to the underchurched.  The 8 points are a ‘least common denominator’ designed to increase inclusiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Burl said:

I’ve had this discussion with Joseph.  If I remember correctly he said they tried to avoid all dogma.  My argument was that is substituting one dogma for another.

The 8 steps are indeed dogmatic.  They are put forth as truth without sufficient rational support.

I think most progressive Christians reject many of the 8 points of Progressive Christianity.com. 

PC is an Episcopal mission to the underchurched.  The 8 points are a ‘least common denominator’ designed to increase inclusiveness.

I take your point about the steps but not sure how much of any dogma has sufficient rational support. 

Also not sure how we would measure or even know if most pCs reject many of the 8 steps.

Why do you say that PC is an Episcopal mission to the unchurched? That is sort of intriguing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Burl said:

I’ve had this discussion with Joseph.  If I remember correctly he said they tried to avoid all dogma.  

This is also interesting and rings true given the diversity of opinion/belief I have read that defines itself as PC.

However I wonder if it is confusing for a seeker or simply the curious who really long for insight into Christianity.

 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service