So, Jeremy - you obviously did NOT listen to the Archbishop's message in its entirety, did you? Or if you DID, you think HE is unorthodox?
That is exactly one of the points made in the Archbishop's talk: Christ CAN be visibly at work in those that don't know the name and that WE limit God by making up arbitrary boundaries in which WE want him to work. The use of the "sound bites" in this post, which narrows and limits the Archbishop's message considerably, makes me suspect that Jeremy did not actually listen to the full audio message. And if Jeremy takes the message to heart, it should have a positive influence the tone of his future posts on McLaren's book. If you have not listened to it, I HIGHLY encourage you to do so! I listened to it on my iPod on a run, and caught myself saying "amen" out loud several times! I agree with you in your observation on Brian and Samir, and think you will find that they seem to be already at work doing the work the Archbishop is hopeful of. After you've had a chance to listen to the full audio message, comment back - I'd love to hear your reaction! I'm not always in agreement with Rowan Williams, but I can't find much to argue with in this talk.
Yes, I unfortunately did, and I was offended, especially by the arrogant attitude of the interviewers. BUT I just read a wonderful Lenten mediation this morning on "being offended" that I will share:
When asked, "How can we learn not to be easily offended?" a Desert Father said:
Consider how dogs hunt rabbits. One dog spots the rabbit and runs after it, giving it chase. When other dogs in the pack see that one dog race down the path, they take off after him, until they become winded and quit, never having seen the rabbit. So they turn back. That one dog, however, will pursue his quarry until he catches it. He ignores briers, rocks, injury, and weariness. He takes no notice that he is alone. He will not rest until he has caught that rabbit. It is the same with those who seek Christ, training their eyes on the cross. They ignore what upsets or injures them. Their eyes are fixed on reaching God's Love. --Sayings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers
So, I am repenting of chasing after other dogs and going back to chasing the Rabbit.
Heidi, I have my own ideas for all of your important questions, and they make sense to me, but they might not make sense to you. Suffice it to say that even though I read Genesis as a beautiful myth (which makes it MORE true for today and all times), and even though I don't believe in "penal substitution", I see a clear need for the complete salvation (more that heaven when I die) of the Christ that brings me into the flow of the Trinity. Jesus' life to me was NOT in vain: his life of complete self-emptying, sacrificial, powerless love (kenosis) and complete non-violent path that this took him on - even though it meant his own death on the cross - shows me how I am to live MY life. Jesus' death was NOT in vain: it shows that the world's most powerful empire was powerless over Love - Love Wins, death is not the end. Life goes on for those who do not cling to things, money, power, status, position in THIS life. And we don't have to die physically in order to claim this new Life. We just need to follow Jesus' complete path TO the cross, ON the cross and BEYOND the cross in order to find our Real Life.
i’ve crafted
yahweh
out of systematics
biblical theology
greek and hebrew lexicons
out of positions
and titles
responsibilities
and roles
i have fooled myself into believing
that the god i’ve crafted
is the god of the bible
and it’s left me arrogant
rather than humble
it’s filled me with words
instead of wonder
i talk and speak and think about him
rather than being and living and walking
Posted by Jeremy on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 9:20 am
I've offered resources where one COULD learn of the more contemporary thoughts on Original Sin. I don't have the time or energy to unpack it all for you. If you are truly interested, read the books and check the links I have provided - do your OWN homework and make up your OWN mind. Both Augustine and Pelagius would have been assuming a historical original couple named Adam and Eve, and I'm pretty sure Pagitt (as most modern theologians) do not hold to that in light of all the evolutionary evidence. My suspicion of Bouma's narrow comparison is that, while the contemporary theologians I mentioned above have not been labeled as "heretics", Palegius HAS been so labeled. And if Bouma's obvious ploy is to tie Pagitt to a heretic, why WOULD he introduce any one else to compare against?
And I have repeatedly asked Bouma if he believed in a historical Adam and Eve and have received NO response. Do YOU? Do YOU think there was a historical time where two humans lived in a PERFECT world?
Again, for this "debate" to be stuck back in the time of Augustine and Pelagius as if the doctrine was "frozen in time" 1600 years ago, is pretty stupid in my opinion. This is why I don't see this as an honest "examination" of Doug's thoughts on the Fall as originally claimed, but simply an attempt to paint him (and all emergents) as heretics. Now THAT looks like a duck! I can HARDLY wait for Jeremy's "fair and balanced" review of McLaren's book!
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
jeffcstraka 
Production