The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What books are our members reading? Post updates freely! {g}

Studies Books
#303

Yep DP is really good when it comes to the prêterist rationale, BUT yeah, has never liked the inclusive soteriological “implications” of the same… something I wrangled with many prêterists in former times when I first ran with the “pantelism” moniker to explain the fusion of BOTH fulfilled eschatology AND soteriology.

The term pantelism when used by either anti or non-full prêterists typically just refers to full prêterism BUT in full prêterist circles it is viewed (inadequately I might say) as universalist prêterism.

!!! [JRP ad/mod edit: since this is in direct commentary on a position described by Qaz in his post on what he’s reading, I’m letting it stand (in fact un-deleted) as on topic. DEBATE AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC should go to a proper thread, not here.]

#316

[snik!]

And to keep it on topic, I recommend “All Over But The Shouting” by Rick Bragg. Really good memoir! A look at the southern way of life and a broken family and love and dealing with life in ways we do not expect. Highly recommended. Bought it at a yard sale. :smile:

#319

“Knowledge and Human Interests” by Jurgen Habermas. At this point in the book he is explaining Hegel’s critique of Kant’s critique of pure knowledge (i.e., a priori knowledge and the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge).
The book is a bit dated now and somewhat out of fashion, but well worth the efforts to understand the problems involved in a phenomenological approach.

You asked! :slight_smile:

#320

WOW :telephone_receiver: I would need help with that one. :grinning:

#321

If a person has a real interest in the subject, it’s not too difficult. Kind of a guilty pleasure for me.

#322

Thanks!

#324

I just finished ‘To Heaven and Back’ by Mary Neal

Great book if you are interested in the afterlife and NDE’s.

#325

Though it may invite controversy that shouldn’t be pursued on this thread, I completed “The Triumph of Love: Same-Sex Marriage and the Christian Love Ethic” by published universalist and philosopher, Dr. Eric Reitan. Here is the review I submitted to Amazon:

"Eric Reitan presents a well reasoned and more than thorough case for supporting same-sex marriage in light of core Christian values. He presses the need to be able to honestly wrestle, and be able to differ in a loving way about such a controversial issue. And he generously evaluates classic arguments against it, including negative Bible texts, arguments that it is unnatural, and that it is a slippery slope to accepting other problematic unions.

But most pivotal for Reitan is the New Testament consensus that “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). It’s not only that “God is love” (1 John 4:8), and that “the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself”) Gal. 5:14), but that Jesus concludes, “All the Law and Prophets (the Scripture) hang” on such love (Matthew 22:40).

This leads Reitan to ask what God’s will as a love that seeks others’ good would mean for those whose drive for romantic intimacy is profoundly homosexual. And he argues that caring to evaluate this means that we cannot bypass knowing and examining the actual experiences of those whose deepest instincts are toward such intimacy. Especially when they repeatedly face the message that that this is condemned as an affront to God, with no acceptable expression.

He cites St. Paul’s reasoning that the option of lifelong monogamy is vital for the welfare of heterosexuals lacking the gift of celibacy. And examining the known results, he observes that opposing a similar fidelity for homosexuals reinforces endless guilt about failure to change, hiding a key part of their identity, and/or momentary relief in promiscuous patterns of meaningless sexual encounters. But we observe that when the option of a committed monogamous union is encouraged, many experience a much healthier and loving life.

Thus for Reitan, there is no contest about which option produces better fruit, and which has any benefits outweighed by more destructive harm. And to be candid, as one who long has been stunned at how united all the apostles were that love is the enduring “Royal Law” which matters above all, I found Reitan’s approach highly convincing, and I would richly commend his volume to anyone who is wrestling with this challenging issue."

#326

Out of curiosity, Bob. Do you support that theological viewpoint, personally? Obviously, if I usually side with Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic, theological viewpoints…And quote from the non-denominational site Got Questions…I can’t personally side with that viewpoint. That’s all I have to ask and say.

#327

Yes, as I said, for some time now, that is the approach that I have found most convincing.

#328

Thanks Bob! :+1: Appreciate it!

#329

What did the Lakotas say about this, Randy?

#330

The tribes I hung around with - mainly Lakota. But also Ute and Ojibwe…were strictly Male / Femaie relationships. That’s not to say there wasn’t same sex relationships happening. But I didn’t see it or hear about it. But I did hear things like Elk medicine. Which makes the male…well, superman in a certain area. :smile:

#331

Understood!

#332

Bob - very interesting and challenging. Perhaps I will order that book and open my mind and heart a bit.
WWJD? I don’t know. If He sensed a brokenness in a couple of gay men, for instance, would He seek to heal the brokenness, or bless the couple and send them on their way? If He thought the relationship was ‘unnatural’, would He be concerned? Would He go all OT on them?
I don’t know the answers to those questions; otoh, I’m sure what actions He took would be out of love and concern. Love, of course, can seem harsh as well as comforting.

As an aside, let me ask you this: if you were pastor of a Christ-honoring church right now, and a hue and cry from the congregation, to the effect that ‘we need more diversity in the leadership’ - i.e., some gay or tran folks as leaders - would you agonize over your decision? Why/why not?
Thanks

1 Like
#333

Dave, At this point I’d in my understanding, if the congregation supported it, I’d be more than glad to embrace in leadership gay, etc and even married ones in leadership if they met similar character and standards of fidelity as traditionally expected of heterosexuals. As one who long saw the traditional view as unarguable, I do realize this sounds unpersuasive to most evangelicals, even those of us who have rejected the traditional consensus on final judgment.

Awhile after retiring (partly due to the stress of knowing that my thinking didn’t fit the fundamentalist mode), my church faced a vote since our regional body chose to exit the American Baptist Churches which I had served, loving its’ racial and theological diversity. This denomination had an official plank that any practice of homosexuality was sinfully unBibilical, but Baptist congregational polity meant that churches had the right to send whoever they wanted to bienniual meetings, and a handful of open churches had chosen gay representatives. Conservatives reacted that unless we acted as a hierarchal denomination and barred the local churches decision, they would split.

I’m very thankful I was not at the helm then, because unlike your scenario of congregational openness to diversity, I know it would have been impossible to argue for not breaking away, without a war and hell to pay. Thus I probably would have supported the majority and then resigned.

2 Likes
#334

Thanks Bob. You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this, and for that reason I will take it seriously. I’ll try to find a deal on that book and order it.
There are so many questions/obstacles/taboos surrounding all issues dealing with s*x. In the past, I’ve found it very easy to just put the questions aside, or glibly answer with the comforting traditional stance. I’ve come to realize recently that I need to be ‘woke’. (I don’t mean that in the 'social justice warrior sense :slight_smile:

1 Like
#335

The Practicing Mind by Thomas M Sterner

#336

I haven’t found the book that @Bob_Wilson recommended yet - at a used price - but for the nonce, I wonder if those, like Bob, who have put a lot of thought into this matter, think that the following trend and world-view is correct, going way too far, or not going far enough?
From RandyKOZ’s BBC :wink:

It seemed perfectly clear that the tweet intended to make parents more open to the possibility that their little bundles of joy may not turn out to be the boy or girl they thought they were raising. In fact, it strongly suggests that being too forceful in teaching such once-elementary realities as “boys have penises, girls have vaginas” is dangerous and antiquated.

The article: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/31/bbc-releases-clip-proclaiming-end-boys-girls/

#337

"Most of the time our worry comes from a desire to be in control. It’s actually a form of idolatry because it’s making something else out to be bigger than God. We put Him back in His proper place in our minds when we say, “You’re a good Father. I’m going to trust You. I refuse to worry about these things and choose to cast them on You. I have faith that You are a good Daddy” (p.99).

https://books.google.ca/books?id=3DKFDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT71&lpg=PT71&dq=Most+of+the+time+our+worry+comes+from+a+desire+to+be+in+control+ruonala&source=bl&ots=6uiAe3hm62&sig=dTOVPqd6ejEuM8RpPZ-hqZcz7S8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRloCcn_7eAhXJhVQKHep3CCwQ6AEwCXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Most%20of%20the%20time%20our%20worry%20comes%20from%20a%20desire%20to%20be%20in%20control%20ruonala&f=false