BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I'll bet Eugene Peterson has some LGBT friends who feel pretty betrayed right about now.
My Weekly Devotional
- Thread starter revsdd
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
It was quite a flipflop he made. In one interview saying that he was okay now with same-sex marriage and would even officiate at a same-sex wedding, and then the next moment saying that he was recanting his statement. His change of heart may or may not have had something to do with Lifeway.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
This is my view ---
This is a perfect example of people calling themselves Christians -----They wear the T-Shirt to make themselves appear good on the outside ----
Jesus says it best ----using the Message version here and God's Word in comparison
Matthew 23:27-28 (MSG)
27-28 “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You’re like manicured grave plots, grass clipped and the flowers bright, but six feet down it’s all rotting bones and worm-eaten flesh. People look at you and think you’re saints, but beneath the skin you’re total frauds.
Matthew 23:27-28 (GW)
27 “How horrible it will be for you, experts in Moses’ Teachings and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed graves that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of dead people’s bones and every kind of impurity. 28 So on the outside you look as though you have God’s approval, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Christians are the worst for walking their talk to be Christ like -----
But this is also a perfect example of Ministers trying to please both sides ----being double minded -----mixing the world with God ---you will offend one group of people and please another regardless of what side you take -----and if because of all the backlash you change your stance ---then your really in trouble cause the people won't trust your sincerity on either side in my view ----
We Christians need to smarten up and start walking the talk ----and Ministers who are called by God to be in the pulpit need to choose God and preach His word and stop trying to please people with half truths by sugar coating and watering down God's message having one foot in the world and one foot in God's world so they can be popular on both sides of the fence ----- which makes the Minister unstable and uncommitted to one side or the other ---
Jesus ruffled many feathers and was hated by many -----He didn't sugar coat ---He said what His Father told Him to say ---and many were offended
Which side to be on ---make a choice and stay the course ---
This is a perfect example of people calling themselves Christians -----They wear the T-Shirt to make themselves appear good on the outside ----
Jesus says it best ----using the Message version here and God's Word in comparison
Matthew 23:27-28 (MSG)
27-28 “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You’re like manicured grave plots, grass clipped and the flowers bright, but six feet down it’s all rotting bones and worm-eaten flesh. People look at you and think you’re saints, but beneath the skin you’re total frauds.
Matthew 23:27-28 (GW)
27 “How horrible it will be for you, experts in Moses’ Teachings and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed graves that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of dead people’s bones and every kind of impurity. 28 So on the outside you look as though you have God’s approval, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Christians are the worst for walking their talk to be Christ like -----
But this is also a perfect example of Ministers trying to please both sides ----being double minded -----mixing the world with God ---you will offend one group of people and please another regardless of what side you take -----and if because of all the backlash you change your stance ---then your really in trouble cause the people won't trust your sincerity on either side in my view ----
We Christians need to smarten up and start walking the talk ----and Ministers who are called by God to be in the pulpit need to choose God and preach His word and stop trying to please people with half truths by sugar coating and watering down God's message having one foot in the world and one foot in God's world so they can be popular on both sides of the fence ----- which makes the Minister unstable and uncommitted to one side or the other ---
Jesus ruffled many feathers and was hated by many -----He didn't sugar coat ---He said what His Father told Him to say ---and many were offended
Which side to be on ---make a choice and stay the course ---
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Which side of which issue, unsafe? There's more than one issue. And there's waaaayyyy more than one sect of Christianity claiming to be doing all of the translating exactly right.
Also, I'm confused. Your use of The Message translation was ironic, yes?
Also, I'm confused. Your use of The Message translation was ironic, yes?
unsafe
Well-Known Member
BetteTheRed ----your quote ---Which side of which issue, unsafe?
My post has nothing to do with issues no where do I mention the word issues ----The Latter part of my post is for Minister picking and choosing what side of the road or fence they want to be on ---This world's side or God's side -----you can't serve both God and this world ----they are at odds with each other ---
This is my Quote -----
----and Ministers who are called by God to be in the pulpit need to choose God and preach His word and stop trying to please people with half truths by sugar coating and watering down God's message having one foot in the world and one foot in God's world so they can be popular on both sides of the fence ----- which makes the Minister unstable and uncommitted to one side or the other ---
My post has nothing to do with issues no where do I mention the word issues ----The Latter part of my post is for Minister picking and choosing what side of the road or fence they want to be on ---This world's side or God's side -----you can't serve both God and this world ----they are at odds with each other ---
This is my Quote -----
----and Ministers who are called by God to be in the pulpit need to choose God and preach His word and stop trying to please people with half truths by sugar coating and watering down God's message having one foot in the world and one foot in God's world so they can be popular on both sides of the fence ----- which makes the Minister unstable and uncommitted to one side or the other ---
unsafe, what minister would choose the world over God?
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
unsafe, here's where I'm having a problem. No specific issue. You seem to think that a "Minister of God" always knows which side of an issue to be on, because they have God's Word right in front of them to tell them right from wrong.
Elsewhere on this site, there is a conversation going on, about the death of an infant, about which two Ministers are "in conflict", in that they disagree on the correct course of action. Both of them are, although maybe differing degrees/types of conservative, a lot more conservative than any opinion that My particular minister, or me, would have on a bunch of topics.
How do you KNOW which one is right? About anything?
Pontifex Geronimo 13
#walkaway
Steve,
I have noticed a regrettable pattern in reactions to Christian leaders who change their thinking on controversial issues. Only if the change brings their thinking closer to our perspectives, we tend to view the change as a courageous expression of spiritual maturation and open-minded critical engagement. The article below illustrates that it is unfairly judgmental to invoke Peter's denial as an apt metaphor for an assessment of Eugene Peterson's flipflop:
Eugene Peterson Flips, then Flops on Gay “Marriage” - Crisis Magazine
Peterson has always favored gay marriage and thus expressed his true conviction with his stated willingness to perform such a marriage. His Message translation even grossly suppresses presumed anti-gay Biblical language. His retraction merely implies that, upon further reflection, he would not perform such a marriage. Why not? Because he was a long-time professor at Regent College, a conservative seminary and has a wide evangelical readership, and so, he would not want to offend their sincere support of traditional marriage by performing such an act.
A previous pastor at my last church openly supported gay marriage and lost half his congregation in doing so. I had to tread delicately on this question, inviting parishioners to examine various perspectives on the relevant texts to strive for greater mutual understanding of the various aspects of the issue. It would have been divisive and counter-productive to take a direct public stand from the pulpit. When pastors are tempted to share their unique perspectives on controversial questions, they should first ask themselves, "What is the most probable result of such sharing?"
When I was working on my doctoral thesis, I was invited as a candidate for a professorship at Regent during Peterson's career there. I had to give a lecture to a large crowd of students, who were in tears because my interview signaled the dismissal of a very popular professor, who had unknowingly danced in a bar with the president's 19-year-old daughter--an innocent act because the professor was single, believed the young woman was older, and didn't realize he was dancing with the president's daughter!
After the lecture, I was informed that they were more interested in me than in the in-house candidate, but needed to ask me questions on the Trinity. Now as a candidate, you try to impress with original, thoughtful insight, but attempting to do so got me in trouble there. Specifically, my survey of neglected NT texts demonstrating that Jesu was more fully human than many evangelicals realize prompted the charge that I was "dangerous," even though I endorsed the major creeds.
But their resulting rejection of my candidacy did me a favor for 2 reasons: (1) I would feel so theologically stifled by such thought police. (2) I can be a procrastinator and wasn't really far enough along in my doctoral thesis to believe I could finish it in a timely fashion in the thralls of course preparation and teaching. So I can readily empathize with Peterson's second-thoughts about performing a gay marriage in such an intellectually oppressive atmosphere.
I have noticed a regrettable pattern in reactions to Christian leaders who change their thinking on controversial issues. Only if the change brings their thinking closer to our perspectives, we tend to view the change as a courageous expression of spiritual maturation and open-minded critical engagement. The article below illustrates that it is unfairly judgmental to invoke Peter's denial as an apt metaphor for an assessment of Eugene Peterson's flipflop:
Eugene Peterson Flips, then Flops on Gay “Marriage” - Crisis Magazine
Peterson has always favored gay marriage and thus expressed his true conviction with his stated willingness to perform such a marriage. His Message translation even grossly suppresses presumed anti-gay Biblical language. His retraction merely implies that, upon further reflection, he would not perform such a marriage. Why not? Because he was a long-time professor at Regent College, a conservative seminary and has a wide evangelical readership, and so, he would not want to offend their sincere support of traditional marriage by performing such an act.
A previous pastor at my last church openly supported gay marriage and lost half his congregation in doing so. I had to tread delicately on this question, inviting parishioners to examine various perspectives on the relevant texts to strive for greater mutual understanding of the various aspects of the issue. It would have been divisive and counter-productive to take a direct public stand from the pulpit. When pastors are tempted to share their unique perspectives on controversial questions, they should first ask themselves, "What is the most probable result of such sharing?"
When I was working on my doctoral thesis, I was invited as a candidate for a professorship at Regent during Peterson's career there. I had to give a lecture to a large crowd of students, who were in tears because my interview signaled the dismissal of a very popular professor, who had unknowingly danced in a bar with the president's 19-year-old daughter--an innocent act because the professor was single, believed the young woman was older, and didn't realize he was dancing with the president's daughter!
After the lecture, I was informed that they were more interested in me than in the in-house candidate, but needed to ask me questions on the Trinity. Now as a candidate, you try to impress with original, thoughtful insight, but attempting to do so got me in trouble there. Specifically, my survey of neglected NT texts demonstrating that Jesu was more fully human than many evangelicals realize prompted the charge that I was "dangerous," even though I endorsed the major creeds.
But their resulting rejection of my candidacy did me a favor for 2 reasons: (1) I would feel so theologically stifled by such thought police. (2) I can be a procrastinator and wasn't really far enough along in my doctoral thesis to believe I could finish it in a timely fashion in the thralls of course preparation and teaching. So I can readily empathize with Peterson's second-thoughts about performing a gay marriage in such an intellectually oppressive atmosphere.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
BetteTheRed -----
your focused on issues ----I am not talking any issues ---I am talking worlds ---this world or God's Kingdom ----Preaching --Period
Minister are suppose to be servants of God and preach His word ---not preach what they want to please people ----you will never please all people some groupo of people will always be offended -----Read revsdd devotional post-----my post is an answer to his post ----
your focused on issues ----I am not talking any issues ---I am talking worlds ---this world or God's Kingdom ----Preaching --Period
Minister are suppose to be servants of God and preach His word ---not preach what they want to please people ----you will never please all people some groupo of people will always be offended -----Read revsdd devotional post-----my post is an answer to his post ----
unsafe, a surprising number of ministers (pastors, priests, rabbis, imams, etc.) choose God.
Thus God is an isolated thing .. and quite counterpoint to mankind that is so lovingly social ... broadly speaking ... and possibly accounting for the lack of tolerance for the female spirit ... a kind of genre in an accumulation of word(s) and way some people fear reading a broad spectra of communicative literature across time ...
God fearing people? If one can see clearly into mortals fears (as accrued) would this be clear vision or a spirit of clairvoyant-C ... thus accommodating the vicious Right's ability to encourage fear and anger in people they see lesser than thou --- as extracted from Hegel's commentary on the Right's as translated from German as Recht, or Reich that could leave a person seeing that word interpreted into another form approximating a humus wreck ... NOSH-ite? And some people in their Cereus form of blood-brain separation cannot deal with the fluid Nous ... involved in learning things that are strangely avoided in the bible of a King with narrow visions about the freedom allowed his earthly people of dirty image. Such a King could appear as limited as Trumph ante ... off on a toute with all the landed immigrants from God knows where ... state of mind as heaven are not allowed ... thus eliminated adepts!
Anything below that fixed vision is unseen spirits ... the bible suggests these may be unfamiliar angels ... careful if you don't see them they could get cha ... thus the cognizant zoan of confined minds ... while others are condemned as Zion ... reflecting from inner space?
Sol is a strange thing ... especially when missing in much of mankind ... leaving dark abstract arias like negro spirits! They can he heard like a hiss'n the trees ... that's Hur ... designed to keep the unlearned away from the logic scheme ... sometimes known as a reasonable map in solving mental enigmas. eventually ... you see that inner spark deep in that shadow within as what's out there doubts the human capabilities for being cognizant to strange concepts like rounded space ... a woman bent out of shape for being isolated from men stuff? Men as more brute think they're wiser? Remember to respect the mother spirit ... its part of the tense commandments ... some Christians hate to abide with them as they inhibit greatest success ... shortfall in the normal caste?
Seems to me if God is given a no to wide spread potential ... in some minds god is contained as a small, or lesser being that their self-egos ... as excessively confident men ... as those that don't know the test limits ... prototypical ...
Those of psyche and getting by physicality call this archetypical bluster ... gross winds of God! Again just a state of mind and many hard Christians say there is no sol ... it is an imaginary organic structure ... inorganic myth? Hard to unravel as some monsters that are retained in the construct of mind ... as conceived by God knows Hoo ... a myth that's myrrh'deire to learn and conceive with ...
Last edited:
Pontifex Geronimo 13
#walkaway
See you are a very negative person to the extensive nature of God! ... eternal Eve 'n ... an extension of the occult form!
Pontifex Geronimo 13
#walkaway
Confirmed ... another negative ...
Pontifex Geronimo 13
#walkaway
No you're negative
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. A few notes in response.
Not sure your point in posting the article as your "illustration," since I'm not really comparing Peterson to Peter directly. In other words I'm not arguing that Peterson's flip flop = Peter's denial. What I'm saying is that all people will eventually disappoint us in some way. Me, you, Eugene Peterson and Peter - we will all disappoint. In different ways, but with the same result in the response of others: disappointment and sometimes judgement.
So, my point is not to be judgemental of Peterson (in fact, my point is just the opposite - it's not to be judgemental of Peterson) but to try to understand the situation he was faced with, which will give us a better understanding of the reason for the "flip-flop."
I don't disagree with your analysis of why he retracted his position. I'm not sure that The Message "grossly suppresses" anything. Rather, it is deliberately an extremely dynamic and fluid translation, an attempt to render the original languages in completely modern language and even sometimes what would be called slang in order to try to make the equivalent point to the modern world which was being made to that ancient world - which is not easy to do and will always open one to criticism. The Message is essentially using a technique that Charles Cosgrove and Dow Egerton call "incarnational translation." (In Other Words: Incarnational Translation For Preaching, 2007) I rather suspect that Cosgrove and Egerton (both of whom I studied under) came up with the phrase in the light of what Peterson was already doing, rather than inventing the technique themselves.
My doctoral thesis was on the subject of preaching to churches experiencing conflict. One of my conclusions was that the great mistake too many preachers make is to assume that they need to wade directly headlong into every bone of contention that comes up in a congregation, when in fact (from the pulpit at least) it is generally better to approach issues of conflict indirectly, and always from the perspective of agape love which encourages us to give up something of ourselves for the sake of others, which then makes possible reconciliation. As a part of my doctoral work I developed an entire sermon series based on 1 Corinthians that could be used as a broad outline of how to preach during a time of conflict in a congregation.
One hopes that truly preaching the gospel makes any of us "dangerous" in some respects. The gospel either converts or offends, after all - both potentially dangerous outcomes.
Agreed. We tend to always make the assumption that we're right and anyone who suddenly agrees with us has joined the "right" side.
Mystic said:
Not sure your point in posting the article as your "illustration," since I'm not really comparing Peterson to Peter directly. In other words I'm not arguing that Peterson's flip flop = Peter's denial. What I'm saying is that all people will eventually disappoint us in some way. Me, you, Eugene Peterson and Peter - we will all disappoint. In different ways, but with the same result in the response of others: disappointment and sometimes judgement.
So, my point is not to be judgemental of Peterson (in fact, my point is just the opposite - it's not to be judgemental of Peterson) but to try to understand the situation he was faced with, which will give us a better understanding of the reason for the "flip-flop."
As I said I've never given much thought to Peterson's views on same gender marriage, but in the light of this controversy I'd say that's true.Mystic said:
Mystic said:
I don't disagree with your analysis of why he retracted his position. I'm not sure that The Message "grossly suppresses" anything. Rather, it is deliberately an extremely dynamic and fluid translation, an attempt to render the original languages in completely modern language and even sometimes what would be called slang in order to try to make the equivalent point to the modern world which was being made to that ancient world - which is not easy to do and will always open one to criticism. The Message is essentially using a technique that Charles Cosgrove and Dow Egerton call "incarnational translation." (In Other Words: Incarnational Translation For Preaching, 2007) I rather suspect that Cosgrove and Egerton (both of whom I studied under) came up with the phrase in the light of what Peterson was already doing, rather than inventing the technique themselves.
It can happen.Mystic said:
Mystic said:
My doctoral thesis was on the subject of preaching to churches experiencing conflict. One of my conclusions was that the great mistake too many preachers make is to assume that they need to wade directly headlong into every bone of contention that comes up in a congregation, when in fact (from the pulpit at least) it is generally better to approach issues of conflict indirectly, and always from the perspective of agape love which encourages us to give up something of ourselves for the sake of others, which then makes possible reconciliation. As a part of my doctoral work I developed an entire sermon series based on 1 Corinthians that could be used as a broad outline of how to preach during a time of conflict in a congregation.
Mystic said:
One hopes that truly preaching the gospel makes any of us "dangerous" in some respects. The gospel either converts or offends, after all - both potentially dangerous outcomes.
I can also empathize with Peterson. That was the point I was trying to make. Since we're all human, we should be able to empathize with Peterson rather than judging him or reacting with anger.Mystic said: