Subscribe |
Track your commentsYou post a comment on a blog. How do you know if anyone responded? You read an interesting post. How do you know when there are new comments? Use co.mments to bookmark posts you want to follow. It tracks new comments for you, so you don't miss out. You can see all the new comments from your tracking page, or subscribe to the feed. To get started, just grab yourself a bookmarklet and start tracking. Click here to get an account. |
Conversations for Thechurchgeek
Tip: Don't have an account? Get one, it only takes a few seconds. (Why?)
-
The Disaster In Iowa Is Getting Worse June 14, 2008
Posted by Jim in current events, news. trackback "This is our version of Katrina," Johnson County Emergency Management spokesman Mike Sullivan said of Iowa City. "This is the worst flooding we've ever seen." At least three deaths in Iowa have been attributed to the storms and subsequent flooding, and 12 more have died in two recent tornadoes. The s... [Source: http://jwest.wordpress.com]
No comments in conversation. -
June 9, 2008
THE HEADACHES OF CHURCH LEADERSHIP If you become leader of a big organization you can expect to be handling trouble. Take Pope Benedict XVI, for example, who now has to figure out what to do about two nuns who chained themselves to the Vatican on Sunday to protest their treatment by their convent. Is there a particularly religious or even Catholic ... [Source: http://billtammeus.typepad.com]
8 comments in conversation. Last comment found June 10.
-
Can we agree to disagree about homosexuality?
With the recent PJC decision ragrding Janie Spahr, I am again left wondering if we can truly agree to disagree about this particular "issue" in the church. This semantics-driven decision and some of the responses I have seen only emphasize this quagmire that we are in regarding our current denominational health. I am amazed at the wonderful ministr... [Source: http://www.mod.reyes-chow.com]
17 comments in conversation. Last comment found May 07.
Last 5 comments:
>>>We were doing so well with this discussion. Is it necessary to drag us through the mud again?<<<</p>
I don't believe that truth is mud. If so, then Jesus dragged people into the mud all the time; so did the prophets. The truth makes us all uncomfortable, including me. However, if we are claiming to belong to the Way, the Truth and the Life, we'd all better get a grip on what He means.
Progressives have traded the truth for a lie and follow a gospel that is no gospel at all. They are bringing people down with them.
Call it mud if you want. But Christ will reign and will rejoice when anyone, no matter what our sinful inclinations may be , comes to him in repentance, and leaves in joy.
Mud is it?
JJ
Posted by: JJ | May 06, 2008 at 06:08 AM
JJ,
Do you believe that their are progressive Christians that are sincerely trying to discern God's will, follow the Scriptural witness, use the intelligence God has gifted them with, and live a life with Jesus as their Lord?
Do you believe that someone can honestly seek to follow God and God's Word above all else, yet still think homosexuality is equal in God's sight to heterosexuality?
Do you believe that people with whom you disagree on this issue can still be operating from genuinely Christian motives, but have arrived at wrong conclusions?
If you do, I don't hear that in your comments, and that makes me sad.
I believe and think that homosexuality is OK. But I know many Christians who don't. I disagree with them, and I disagree with their conclusions. But I am not willing to questions their genuine desire to follow and please God. And they feel the same about me. They think I am as wrong as wrong can be on this matter, but they know I am trying to seek God's will and not my own in this matter.
If we can't have that mutual understanding of one another, then we may need to split. But the split won't be over homosexuality, it will be over not being able to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Posted by: Shawn Coons | May 06, 2008 at 11:27 AM
>>Do you believe that their are progressive Christians that are sincerely trying to discern God's will, follow the Scriptural witness, use the intelligence God has gifted them with, and live a life with Jesus as their Lord?>Do you believe that someone can honestly seek to follow God and God's Word above all else, yet still think homosexuality is equal in God's sight to heterosexuality?>Do you believe that people with whom you disagree on this issue can still be operating from genuinely Christian motives, but have arrived at wrong conclusions?>If you do, I don't hear that in your comments, and that makes me sad.>they know I am trying to seek God's will and not my own in this matter.>But the split won't be over homosexuality, it will be over not being able to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.<<
I agree completely that the issue is not homosexual behavior. It is a small behavioral issue that belies the iceberg. Homosexual people are merely being used by progressives to further a larger ungodly agenda. They are not being loved or helped in any way by progressive thinking.
-JJ
Posted by: JJ | May 06, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Alright, who leaked a copy of our ungodly agenda? At least nobody has a copy of our ungodly minutes yet.
*hoping a little humor helps*
(I doubt it)
Posted by: Shawn Coons | May 06, 2008 at 04:02 PM
What happened to "God alone is Lord of the conscience?" * Scholars have helpfully traced the origin and meanderings of this slogan. For example, William E. Chapman examines conscience not only in the Westminster Confession of Faith but also in the Book of Confessions, Calvin and Scripture. See his "Beyond Jiminy Cricket: Notes Toward a Reformed View of Conscience" in The Register of the Company of Pastors, 3/2 (Fall 2001): 16-33. And "Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government," 1983 Minutes of the General Assembly, pp. 141-158.)
http://www.pcusa.org/today/believe/past/mar03/balancing.htm
Posted by: Ryan Pappan | May 06, 2008 at 11:11 PM
-
Bible book removal hypothetical
May 1st, 2008 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0) | [Source: http://www.jakebouma.com]
1 comment in conversation. Last comment found May 01.
Last comment:
<\/a>
I’d get rid of Revelation - not because it’s a bad book per se, but because of the way it’s been manipulated and misused throughout Christendom. Having the Left Behind books “erased from human history and memory” would not necessarily be a bad thing either. :)<\/p>
<\/div>
Posted by Erik U.<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>
<\/div>
<\/a>
Song of Solomon… sex is bad.<\/p>
<\/div>
Posted by david<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>
<\/div>
<\/a>
What a great question…First, I love the book of James so that is out. My first thought was Revelation but that’s just our fault for not interpreting it better and i think the bible and our faith would be missing something without that as a book end. <\/p>
I might lean toward Hebrews. It’s way too archane, hard to get, and it addresses issues and draws together themes that may have been important for the early Jewish believers but today it gets applied in universality in ways I think that stretches things.<\/p>
<\/div>
Posted by jbonewald<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>
<\/div>
<\/a>
Erik<\/strong>: I agree about the LB books.<\/p>
david<\/strong>: So that’s<\/em> what Song of Solomon is about…<\/p>
jbonewald<\/strong>: Hebrews is a good choice… I hadn’t even considered it myself.<\/p>
<\/div>
Posted by Jake<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on May 1, 2008<\/a><\/span> <\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
Leave a comment<\/h3>
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML<\/acronym> allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <\/code><\/p>
Name<\/label> (required)
<\/p>
E-mail<\/label> (required)
<\/p>
URI<\/acronym><\/label>
<\/p>
Your Comment<\/label>
<\/textarea>
<\/p>
Stay in the know! Click here to be notified of follow-up comments via e-mail<\/label>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/form>
<\/div>
<\/div>
Subscribe via RSS<\/h2>
<\/img><\/a><\/a><\/p> Want the content featured on JakeBouma.com without all the hassle of actually visiting? Just click the orange icon to your right and subscribe using your favorite feed reader! What is RSS?<\/a>
<\/div>
<\/img>
No feed reader? No problem! Subscribe by email to receive daily updates featuring the freshest content from JakeBouma.com!
<\/form><\/p><\/div>
<\/div>
At the movies ?<\/h2>
Baby Mama (2008)<\/a>
3<\/span>/5<\/span><\/span>
<\/p>
2008-05-01 13:20<\/acronym>
<\/div>
0.3<\/span><\/div>
<\/li>
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007)<\/a>
2<\/span>/5<\/span><\/span>
<\/p>
2008-04-28 14:00<\/acronym>
<\/div>
0.3<\/span><\/div>
<\/li>
<\/ul>
<\/div>
Movie ratings archive ?<\/a><\/div><\/div>
twitter<\/a>: <\/ul><\/div>
-
Speaking of Jeremiah Wright
By Pastor Bob Cornwall I've cut back to once a week, but because of the continuing conversation about the relationship of Jeremiah Wright I thought I'd post a piece I wrote earlier for my own blog - Ponderings on a Faith Journey. Since I posted that I've read responses to Wright's appearance at the National Press Club breakfast. From what I read, t... [Source: http://www.faithfullyliberal.com]
4 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 29.
Last 4 comments:
1
Petrus says:
April 29th, 2008 at 1:33 am
More here:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/bill-moyers-interviews-jeremiah-wright.html
2
Gary Novak says:
April 29th, 2008 at 7:12 am
I think the main problem is the personal attack on Jeremiah Wright. Christ said, do not judge, and you will not be judged. There is no way to respond to subjective value statements in ridicule. It's like calling someone ugly. Objective criticism could be countered with evidence. Subjective value statements cannot. Yet the "mainstream media" just ridicules and degrades instead of providing objective explanations with evidence.
3
rikyrah says:
April 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Wright broke my heart yesterday at the National Press Club. He was 'clowning'. I could literally hear my heart tear into pieces with every question, because he did it on purpose. He's an old Black Man - he knew how White folk would spin it. He had gone 2 days without providing soundbites; so today he clowned, stabbed Obama in the heart, and everyone else who had defended him, and threw Obama under the bus. I'm so mad STILL.
I wrote passionately about why Obama couldn't disown Wright, when this first went down.
As my Mama said last night, ' He clowned for them White people on purpose - to hurt Barack'. Indeed he did, Mama, which is why Obama needs to divorce himself from Wright IMMEDIATELY.
After Wright's performance yesterday, Black folk shouldn't come down on Obama anymore. They would have when this first shook out because those were soundbite snippets.
At the NPC was a full-on 'shock' performance of the highest order. And since we saw that he can do better (Moyers and the NAACP Dinner), what conclusion could one come to, other than this was done ON PURPOSE TO HURT OBAMA. He displayed Crab-in-a-barrell to the nth degree, and I am hurt as hell.
BTW, I'm Black, from Chicago, and have known about Wright, Trinity, taken pride in both of them for years.
4
jim says:
April 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I've been thinking about this for a while now. I defended Wright publicly at first, but now I've got to say a far better man would have kept his hubris in check and would have just kept quiet.
What on earth is Wright thinking? Here's the first legitimate chance ever for a black man to become president, to potentially change the course of this nation's history, and because of his hubris the whole thing is about the implode.
-
Since today is Earth Day 2008, I felt compelled to post to post a response from a Christian worldvie...
I want to begin, however, not with how I believe Christians should respond to Earth Day, but rather how they should not. There are two extremes which clearly should be avoided. 1) We must avoid becoming obsessed with environmental aims. Not long ago I saw an article praising a youth Disciple Now weekend in which the theme was "Go Green." The author... [Source: https://www.blogger.com]
2 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 24.
Last 2 comments:
thechurchgeek said...
Well, I'd have a few points to argue, but the worst omission here is this...saying absolutely nothing about our gas consumption...surely, as Christians we can do better than that!
7:44 PM, April 23, 2008
For Sale By Owner said...
The WORST omission?? ...man, here I thought I'd done a pretty good job of listing simple ways to lower usage and thechurchgeek just lowers the boom. Wow.
No, man. You're right, we do need to lower gas consumption, but unfortunately it's not something everyone can do equally, which is what I was shooting for in the examples. I've considered buying a new car or going diesel, but I just don't have the money and my wife and I, once we move to GA, won't be able to do much about our gas consumption on a daily basis. So I understand the dilemna on that one for most people. But the suggestions I gave can be done by most people and, as I said, that is really what I was aiming to present.
Thanks again for your comment and you're welcome back anytime.
9:19 PM, April 23, 2008
-
Book Review: "The New Christians" by Tony Jones
April 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm | In books, church, culture, emergent, review, theology | Tags: adam walker cleaveland, book review, emergent, emergent church, marcus borg, pomomusings, st john's lutheran, the new christians, tony jones I won a free copy of Tony Jones' fancy new book, "The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier" a few wee... [Source: http://adamjcopeland.com]
6 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 26.
Last 5 comments:
Adam, I agree with this critique, but with one exception: the book would be strengthened by more thought on what it looks like for people to 'emerge' from the liberal left, by that I mean 'traditonal' liberalism.
I'm not sure that 'everyone' on the left, would in fact agree with all of the dispatches Tony highlights. The hope of emergent, as I see it, is sort of a melding of both the left and the right at some sort of center point.
Comment by jbonewa - April 18, 2008 #
Thanks Tony, and Jim. I wondered how long it would take Tony to find the review-I'd say about 12 hours is pretty darn good!
Jim: that's a really good way to put it, "emerging" from the traditional liberal left. I've certainly done that more than I realize.
And I didn't mean to suggest everyone, or even many, of the traditional liberal left would agree with many of the dispatches. Just that several mainline churches I know-particularly liberal, perhaps-are all over much of what emergent is about. I take Tony's point, though, that many would be thrown by plenty of his message.
Comment by adamjcopeland - April 18, 2008 #
I need to read this book…and need to buy my next three books for class…will it ever end?
One thing I'm intrigued about is the "young" tag you bring up, Adam. I started to "get" things Emergent as soon as I started to be aware of them (thanks largely to classmate/colleague Troy B) and I am chronologically older than that "young" crowd. I tend to think there are more of us over 50s who do/can/will "get it" than we imagine at present.
GREAT post and very helpful - I'll keep it in mind when I do get to read the book.
Comment by Sarah - April 18, 2008 #
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for saying what I've suspected. As a former conservative evangelical who now attends an Episcopal church, and now have been reading emergent stuff, I too have gotten the sense that what is groundbreaking and revolutionary is the very same thing that most mainliners have been doing and are trying to do now.
I look forward to reading Tony's book, but would suggest to him and many others in the conversation that perhaps they should spend a little more time attending mainline churches before they use such lofty terms as "Total re-examination," particularly because there are a lot of things they aren't and won't reexamine.
Comment by David - April 22, 2008 #
Adam - Good stuff. Your affirmations and critiques seem to be what I expected and have heard from the previous conversations, presentations, etc.
Comment by Bruce Reyes-Chow - April 26, 2008 #
-
[Photo]Last week's study leave had an unexpected Jewish theme:
we read and discussed The Misunderstood Jew written by NT professor Amy-Jill Levine (herself an orthodox Jew who wanted to be Pope as a child.) some of us visited The Jewish Museum in NYC and saw, among other things, an amazing portrait of Buber by Warhol. we drooled over windows created by Chagall, in the Pocantico Hills church. we saw Wicked, wit... [Source: https://www.blogger.com]
6 comments in conversation. Last comment found April 07.
Last 5 comments:
jledmiston said...
Hi Roy -
I agree that all are at fault. But my concern was the ad campaign for the
60th anniversary of Israel. Not a peacemaking move, imho.
11:31 AM
revkpd said...
Hi Jan
I recently returned from 2 weeks in Israel/Palestine... it is a mess of a problem. I have a stack of books I'm reading (including Chacours) from a variety of perspectives. I'm reading a book by Shlomo Ben Ami (who was an Israeli diplomat during a number of peace efforts) and has a fascinating take on the history and what not... I'd highly recommend it... Scars of War, Wounds of Peace.
Looking forward to joining the club for the next go-round.
Kerri Peterson-Davis
11:44 AM
Roy said...
About the ad campaign, it's similar to the various readings of ads in the current political campaign. Neither player seems to get it right for all ears and eyes. Probably similar to any country, including our own, that seeks to honor its anniversary. We are still trying to figure out how to acknowledge the historical wounds inflicted by our founders. We are a work in progress. So is Israel and one hopes every nation.
The current Atlantic Monthly has an incisive essay by Jeff Goldberg about the current splits in Israel with regard to the way forward with the Palestinians.
11:58 AM
Purechristianithink said...
Yes, the synogogue in our town-- with whom our church has a long history of cooperation and collaboration--sent us an invitation to its Gala Thanksgiving for 60 years of Israel celebration. Lots of discussion about how best to respond. Can we participate without appearing to be gung ho, Israel-can-do-no-wrong types? Tough one.
2:13 PM
thechurchgeek said...
I read J-Ls book and was both impressed & convicted. In fact I think I need to read it again, because here's my concern regarding what I've been struggling with since I read it:
Following much of the emergent church/NT Wright line of thinking I've taken up seeing the bible as more narrative, AND you can't really see the bible in that way without seeing it as a comprehensive over-arching story of God's continuous work encompassing both the new and old testament; Seeing it as a somewhat seamless story, from the call of Abraham to the rise of the church.
Levine's book reminds me though to be much more careful about the ways I tell that story...which is not an easy thing to do...and probably why I need to read it again.
2:31 PM
-
Sex is challenging
Posted by tribal church on 25 Mar 2008 at 09:08 am | Tagged as: church, feminism Adam Walker Cleaveland at Pomomusings asked about The Sex Challenge at Relevant Church. Basically, for thirty days, the lead pastor's challenging single people to stay abstinent every day and married couples to have sex every day. My gut reaction and my comment was, "I... [Source: http://tribalchurch.org]
12 comments in conversation. Last comment found March 26.
Last 5 comments:
on 25 Mar 2008 at 7:55 pm # Tim
As a husband I would love this scenario, but I agree that it isn't very realistic and maybe not very constructive either. I think that you may be missing the mark a bit when you talk about rights. I think in marriage we have to talk about duties.
I know some couples where they agreed that the wife can never say no. I think that this is a fair starting point if the husband is willing to let his love be sacrificial and not demand that his "right" or "privilege" be fulfilled, but defer to the desires of his bride. If my wife give herself to me in a stingy or resentful fashion it is not emotionally satisfying for either of us.
I have often wanted to use this verse and proclaim my "rights", but my duty in marriage is to love her sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church.
The problem I had with the program is that the pastor acts like premarital sex is tolerable and that they should only give it up for 30 days, not permanently. Sometimes you need to call something what it is, sin. I have plenty in my life. When it becomes known to one of my friends I hope they will point it out (lovingly) to me that I might repent.
Already Justified,
Being Sanctified,
Waiting to be Glorified,
on 26 Mar 2008 at 12:56 am # Diane
Only a man would think that a woman would "let herself go" simply because her husband is "trapped into fidelity." Are there any men who let themselves go after they are married? Used to be a sign of their wife's good cooking. sighsighsigh….
on 26 Mar 2008 at 3:40 am # David Williams
Yeah, I'm happily married to a woman who still floats my boat in that special marital way. But maybe we don't feel like doing the humpty hump every night. If she's had a tough day at work, and I'm dead tired, and the kids have yet another cold, insisting on this seems just plain daft.
Sure, sex talk from the pulpit is "provocative." But..to echo the prior comments…I can't see how this gets at anything that matters in our relationships.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 11:02 am # tribal church
Tim,
I'm really glad you stopped by. Most of my friends can't believe that anyone would think that a wife never saying no would be a fair starting point. I'm glad you proved my case.
And I'm relieved that you've realized that resentful sex is no fun.
I don't think of my body and having sex in terms of a duty. Taking out the trash is a duty. Folding the clothes is a duty. Cleaning out the toilets is a duty. Having sex with my husband is a wonderful thing. It's not a duty. (And I'm imagining a good ol' Beavis and Butthead, "huhuhu" coming from Brian as he reads this….)
It sounds like the wives are much more "trapped into fidelity" in these scenarios.
Diane,
That's a very interesting point. And I think it goes to the heart of what I'm trying to express. It doesn't matter what the men look like… but it matters for women. There's a danger that a wife could be thought of as an accessory. Or (if she has no rights to her own body) something much, much worse.
I know when I went to Bible school, the divorce rate for our graduates was much higher than the national average. This sort of thinking could be one of the main reasons.
But we're living in the 21st century. If a wife's not allowed to say no, if a marriage isn't built on mutual consent, well, she's not trapped any longer. It's pretty simple. She can get a job, get out of the marriage, and find someone who respects her.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 4:14 pm # WaynO
I stop by here occassionally because I like the discussion. This one makes me laugh and then I got scared and almost cried. I am a man, happily married (I hope) and I personally can't have sex everynight/day. My body does not do that anymore.
Sex with my wife is fabulous and I ask more often than I get but I sometimes worry that if I don't ask there will be suspicion, there will not be an offer, I might forget that I want sex.
I still can't believe a pastor would make such a statement from the pulpit. I am a pastor and would not likely do that but who knows.
Great discussion,
WaynO
Last 5 comments:
The nuns weren't accused of SEX with the man, JT (the women were 73 and 79). They were accused of giving the man convent funds.
Posted by: Patricia | June 09, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Patricia,
"The ANSA news agency cited articles from local media claiming the two women were evicted after an inspection by church authorities revealed the presence of a man in the convent." The issue was finding a man in the convent. Everything about money was just a later rumor, a "suggestion."
You missed the point of my remarks. What was the big deal about having a man in the convent? It broke their little rules. It endagered people? You can insinuate whatever you want at that point because the whole thing is ridiculous. What? Were they worried about the nuns having sex? No doubt that would be enough: the mere thought of a consenting, adult heterosexual relationship would be enough for pervert priests to hike up their skirts and go running and screaming back to the rectory.
It is absolutely absurd that finding a man in the convent or even having some of the funds extorted would exile elderly nuns. A priest can diddle with the children and squander millions through lawsuits, but still retire in the Vatican. When was the last time a priest was thrown out like that? The whole picture of that Church and the way it wields its power against women and children is repulsive, especially when contrasted with how it will defend at all costs its high-heeled-boys priesthood. Everyone except priests are mere canon (or cannon) fodder who can be marginalized and dismissed with one flick of a Papal wad. There was no compelling reason for them to do what they did, but they were "just nuns," lesser beings on the Catholic scale. Children also rank low on the canon fodder scale.
Posted by: Just Thinking | June 09, 2008 at 10:52 AM
As someone once told me who had significant experience with the church in europe, the Iona community is a beacon of hope for the future of the church in europe. If the church is going to thrive in a post-christian context it's going to do so in the way of such communities like Iona and others.
You really should go to Iona and stay with the community. It is a blessed experience.
Posted by: jim | June 09, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Until Genesis is Accept as Literal High Tech Science Knowledge, Sexual Orientation of the male as the dominant gender will continue. Genesis shows Adam and Eve were Equal Male and Female Gender Clones, the female made from the male rib. They were Brother/Sister Helpmeets, not mates.
Today we call that type of Reproduction, Cloning. The Other Half of a couple that Body Birth males and females are looking for in a Mate, cannot be found, with each male and female reproduced by Unequal Heterosexual Body Birth.
So Fallen Human Mates have reproduced all the Genetic and Physical Mis-bred Humans ever since. And Humans have looked for their Equal other half ever since. And Sexual Gender has been argued about ever since, the Asexuals reproduced Heterosexuals, Bisexuals, Homosexuals and Transsexuals..
Religion started, after the Fall to Body Birth Reproduction, and male and females were separated in separate housing, for their God/Lord. Celibacy was as close as they could come to the Original Asexual Clones.
Now we again have the High Tech to make Pure-bred Asexual Human Clones, but Heterosexuals reject this, as not the Way God made Humans. They say God made Humans for Body Reproduction, when God did not used Body Reproduction to make Humans.
So Original Sin made a Population explosion, that is smothering the Planet with Mis-bred Human, and Inequality Rages on and on, with Nuclear Bombs as the Answer to destroy this Evil.
Eternal Physical Life is for the Living, not the Dead.
Posted by: Dolores Lear | June 09, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Oh Lord, I hate to agree with Patricia, but she nailed this one!
"The fact that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is male, speaks to its lack of concern regarding human rights. Period."
Posted by: a theist | June 09, 2008 at 11:05 PM