Once more with feeling: I stand with Larycia Hawkins Posted bydatingjesus December 18, 2015 22 Comments on Once more with feeling: I stand with Larycia Hawkins I wrote this for Patheos. And thank you, Dilshad, for giving me the opportunity. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading... Published by datingjesus Just another one of God's children. View more posts
As I turn toward Cup #2, I’m wondering about tweaking your commenters over there. I’ve been kicked off Patheos before…but that was for tweaking atheists.
I mean…I don’t see trinitarianism as defining a separate other god. And I think Vatican II kind of recognized that…didn’t it?
But then evangelicals don’t really subscribe to Vatican II revisionism, do they? Unless, of course, it puts money in Ye Olde Collection Plate.
Please go over there and tweak your heart out. I believe those commenters are missing the point entirely.
Well…we’ll see. I’m staying away from the feminist angle for now because that can be a tricky path to navigate when speaking about Islam.
Not for Islamic feminists but I get your point. And I should never be so arrogant as to encourage someone to wade into comments, ever. There be dragons there.
But I am incorrigible on that score and would have waded in regardless. And dragons?
We shall see………..
Jack upvoted me! That’s the only response I’ve had yet today. Maybe later.
Jac? See why I ignored that particular commenter? I’m debating plugging in…but…sometimes…you can just ask too much of people.
;-) I hear you. I’m going to try to keep it simple. I’ll go a few rounds with the person. The given reason by Wheaton is simply ridiculous. It sounds more like a way to justify their punishment for sympathizing with Muslims. It’s nasty and thank you, DJ, for holding them accountable.
I believe, in the end, it is the faculty and students at Wheaton that will hold the college accountable. I don’t think there’s a lot of support for this action, particularly on campus, and I applaud those inside the fort for refusing to salute this particular flag.
It’s trinitarianism…a rather unique interpretation among the Abrahamic religions…that commenter relies upon to define difference. It’s not a very good argument, really.
Here’s interesting: As a fundamentalist evangelical, we did not study the Trinity as much as you might imagine. That was my particular brand, of course, but I was never clear — despite the incredible amount of hours I spent in study — precisely what was our Official Position — if we had one.
There’s both trinitarian and nontrinitarian traditions, (like Jehovah’s Witnesses…some Pentecostals…Christian Scientists…Mormons), within Christianity. Fundamentalist evangelical would be trinitarian, but there’s probably some substantive difference between…say…your Catholic interpretation and your Protestant interpretation of all that. Because it isn’t exactly…specifically…laid out in Scripture…more of an add-on…some fundamentalist groups might not focus on it as much as other denominations might.
My group fell in the later. Silent where the Bible is silent, etc.
Christians don’t deny the existence of the Abrahamic God prior to Jesus’ appearance on earth, so I don’t get their argument.
The comments from the other person disappeared. I wonder why?
I don’t know. You could ask him. I don’t think the site owner removed them.
And he’s back. I’m gonna sip some café and maybe read some Timothy George.
Excuse me for stepping on your thread. I couldn’t resist after nine pages of Timothy George.
I have to say — to both of you — that it thrills me that you’re in there batting. Some of those other commenters prove the point that evangelicals are far too invested in protecting the brand, as it were, than they are in love. I honor the both of you.
I think the commenters would be able to forge a better argument if they were more familiar with their brand. They’re mostly relying on highly politicized statements made by highly politicized clerics and politicians more eager to create difference and contention than recognize commonality and agreement that might actually lead to some progress on interfaith relations…the way Vatican II forged a new relationship between Roman Catholics and Jews.
I think you’re right. I’ve avoided reading the comments until I realized you and Jac were wading in. I don’t go in and defend what I wrote — I, after all, had the bully pulpit and now everyone can feel free to weigh in without my input (already had my input, as it were), but the commenters seem to cling to the old rugged cross without realizing what they’re clinging to. Their denouncements run precisely counter to the law of Jesus — love, acceptance, and humility.
I always appreciate your insight. Thank you for stepping in.
Thank you, DJ. I enjoy discussing with people who feel a deep down desire to do the right thing, rather than the haters. I sense there is a mixture over there, even as we butt heads. I am conscious of the readers who may be listening and not commenting, too. Although I was snarky at least once, I am trying to be direct in a nice way. I agree with you 1000% on them losing sight of what Jesus most valued and taught.
It seems our friend deletes comments when it becomes apparent the argument is lost or a position cannot be supported. Doing that removes the comment from the Disqus site record, along with all the replies under it.
Leave a comment