DISQUS

This is one funny post, Jonathan. I'm sitting here laughing.

Hey, and you don't even link to me on your blogroll!

Fair enough Eric. Thanks for your kind summary and helpful points.

We talked about this with the editors and thought one "thick" example would be better than trying to resolve a variety of issues with less discussion, most of which would take just as much space. Yes, this section can hang by itself ...

Way over yonder ...

Fair enough. I don't expect everyone to be convinced of how I use Story in the example of women in ministry, but I tried to explain it as I see it. I have only one little grump about this post: that elder stuff is about a blog I posted and not about the book. My contention, of course, is WDWD and whether or not churches are letting women do now what they did then. That, to me, is an argument we need to ponder.

On the "begging your pardon" ... nice little touch. Yes, I can see how some might take my argument that way, but my point -- isn't it? -- that the Church has not read those statements as rules, and Paul himself didn't give the same list twice. So, it's not just that folks don't meet those items but that we -- the Church -- has not treated them that way. Maybe the church has been wrong all along? I consider that an option.

Anyway, I appreciate your fair review. I wish all could review books with your spirit.

Oh, oh... it's the kiss of death to be called "very conservative" in emerging circles.

DJ,
Great to meet you brother. So glad you introduced yourself so I can put a face on that name! That 4:50 flight was my only chance to get home without a redeye (I'm too old for that).

Jim, Jim, Jim ... you surprise me.

(I would not vote for Guliani and neither did I support Robertson.)

Let me see if I've got this right. In your view, Robertson has historically been wrong for being a conservative in his politics; and now you think he's wrong for shifting to support a moderate Republican.

I would think this shift by Robertson to throw his TV station behind Guliani would be a sign of good things for you.

Which of the Republicans is closest to a "purple"/independent politics? Guiliani it seems to me.

Drew,

Thanks for this direct, if a little strong in language ("double-speak" is no kind accusation in my book), engagement with my many posts on homosexuality and the church, which are after all posts and not official publications and which were written to generate conversation instead of simply attempts to articulate my own viewpoint.

My view is easy to articulate: it is classically called "welcoming but not affirming." I think this is the pragmatics of Jesus as well (on anyone he thought was living contrary to God's will).

I've read your post now five times, and there are some things you say that I have no clue for understanding. I give one: are you suggesting with your corpus of Paul's theology to the gentiles that, say, Romans is for Gentiles but not Jews? (Is there a "corpus" -- body -- of Paul's "theology" -- do you mean letters since we have no other "theology" by Paul?)

It is, I would argue, easier to have a pragmatics of radical inclusiveness on this issue or one of radical exclusiveness on this issue, than a pragmatics of welcoming but not affirming. The murkiness of the pragmatics stems from the ambiguity, so I would argue, of pastoral ministry to cracked Eikons. My experiences shows that pastoral life dwells often in murky pragmatics.

Well, thanks for your engagement.

Tuesday I will post this on my blog and hope to get a bundle of folks linking to you.

Tuesday I will post this on my blog and hope to get a bundle of folks linking to you.

Tuesday I will post this on my blog and hope to get a bundle of folks linking to you.

Tim,
I'm glad you bring up both Schaeffer and Stott, for I think the former paved the way for the Religious Right with his two late books -- How Then Shall We Live and Christian Manifesto. Stott set the agenda for many of us in the American scene. He was, in my estimation, a proponent of generous orthodoxy. What do you think of such an idea?

On Stott, it might be fair to say he believed in inerrancy, but you know full well that he had problems with that term -- he preferred to call Scripture (as do I) truthful and trustworthy rather than inerrancy. It seems to me to be a capturing of Stott to push that term for what he said. Clearly, in Evangelical Essentials, he does not disagree with the inerrantists but he makes it clear that he thinks that is not the best term for a theology of Scripture. At one time on Tony's blog, you and I had a similar conversation.

Now, to be fair to Stott, he pushed the boundaries for evangelicalism, and the right side of evangelicalism in the USA thought he was soft on eschatology, on final state, and on social justice/evangelism.

You might e-mail rather than respond on this site.

DJ,
I have done skype before, but have no idea how I did it. Do I dial something? What do I do if I want to listen in?
Scot

Van,
Very nice review. What I like about this review is that you've taken from my world and made it live in your world; you've contextualized the book, and I have to say this is very encouraging to me.
Blessings on missio Dei.

Van,
Very nice review. What I like about this review is that you've taken from my world and made it live in your world; you've contextualized the book, and I have to say this is very encouraging to me.
Blessings on missio Dei.

Van,
Very nice review. What I like about this review is that you've taken from my world and made it live in your world; you've contextualized the book, and I have to say this is very encouraging to me.

Blessings on missio Dei.

Jim,
Let me thank you for this kind review. I'm finding there are a lot more of us that need this kind of help than I imagined. Blessings on you and your prayers.