Responses to ‘a time to rend’

Here’s a post where I am going to collect some of the responses to the announcement by 80 United Methodists calling for a peaceful division of the denomination.

David Watson: Our Newest Plot Twist

Joel Watts: It may help the UMC if we stop lying about one another

Steve Manskar: Beware of Schism

Kenneth Pruitt: When the Good News is not Good News (post uses obscene word)

Chad Holtz: Schism Has Already Taken Place

Drew McIntyre: Toward Schism at Ludicrous Speed

Tom Lambrecht: Another Step of Fragmentation (not actually about the release, but the last few paragraphs certainly have echoes of the case being made by group of 80)

 

And some Tweets:

 

 

 

 

 

20 thoughts on “Responses to ‘a time to rend’”

  1. d,
    your argument implicitly makes the claim that people who disagree with your interpretation of the bible are somehow not using the bible to come to their conclusions. No one is advocating getting rid of the bible. That was my point in contrasting (inerrantists) and (historical critics) they are both using the bible to argue their positions. They, and other positions, are arguing about how truth that is gleaned from God through scripture.
    The quote you gave from John 10:35 is a great example…Jesus says to his detractors who are accusing him of blasphemy that we are all “Gods” because psalm 82 says so. So why should they get upset about his claim as “Son of God”
    -a fundamentalist should say. “I don’t believe in monotheism because Jesus says there is more than one God. The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” great now we can all go and become jehovah’s witness’ OR mormons.
    Now I don’t pretend that that is how you read that text. It’s certainly not how I read it. So a simple flat/literal meaning won’t do in this situation. Fundamentalists and historical critics are using 2 different methods to reach the same conclusion…”here’s the real meaning behind the text” but scripture is a flat dead text in black and white. It’s a living word that is the primary but not only means of communication with a living God. Learning how to communicate with this God in a healthy and constructive manner comes by faith and formation.
    peace,
    josh

    1. excuse me….scripture IS NOT flat dead literal. that was a typo made in haste.

      1. Josh there are answers to your comments but they take a lot of study and a lot of time and a lot of words that cannot be posted on John’s thread. To answer just one of your comments concerning Mormons and JH……. the truth is they introduce words and works foreign to the text. Those denominations have to be studied to understand why they are rejected by Orthodox Christianity.
        There is a thing called “Holy Writ”, that is a study in and of itself.

        Everyone cannot be right.
        Everyone cannot go around with their private interpretation and expect unity of a group on fundamental foundational doctrine.

        Most of the comments and so called evidence presented by the pro-GLBTQ community to the church trying to discredit or twist scripture to fit their agenda are easily refuted with a little study and a look back into history. The only thing they have left is take the position the bible is in error, cannot be taken literally or has progressed to another state and the conservative or Orthodox wing of the church is not buying the argument.

        Have a great evening

  2. d,
    pertaining to your scriptural citations of psalm 12 & 1 John 1:
    psalm 12- the word “words” as in ‘words of God’ is also translated as “promises”
    either way, scripture contains God’s promises/words to us….but scripture does not equate the “bible itself” as “God’s words”
    1 john 1 is not about the bible but about Jesus, the Word of life.

    You said to look up the word Holy. The bible calls Jews and Christians a Holy nation. Are we to give people who are jewish or christian the same authority we give the bible?

    Jesus is the Word of God, and helps us interpret scripture. For instance, in Matt 19 Jesus has a discussion with some pharisees about divorce. The pharisees cite Deuteronomy 24 as God’s word on divorce. Jesus says that that was an allowance from Moses and not God’s intention from the beginning. So is Jesus setting himself against Moses and the bible?

    Brother, this isn’t about a simplistic view of what bible is as a quick fix for controversy.
    peace to you,
    Josh

Comments are closed.