The St Matthew's controversy has been set in motion by me ... according to this comment:
"I’d be interested to hear the response to this from conservative protestant religious leaders who do not hold to the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. It is that theology, after all, that lays the groundwork for such things."
Always good to know these theological connections for which, naturally, I take full responsibility. Glynn, you are off the hook on this one!
Just to add a most curious note about all this talk of “God’s concrete power to transform the world”.
I once heard Jack Spong himself - and who could attack his pedigree of being a sure fount of ‘progressive Christianity’ - say that he could see nothing to hinder his belief in the Exodus, as broadly depicted in the Second Book of the Torah: it was clearly historical that a great Exodus brought about the emergence of the embryonic Israelite nation; and that the Psalms for example were right to celebrate this as “the wonderful act of God” over the gods of Egypt.
Yet when it comes to the concrete demonstration of God’s power in the physical resurrection of Jesus and the transformation of his body - he then baulked ... Why the difference, I wonder(ed)?! He declined to answer my question when put ...
That is to say, why do these progressives continue to cut and paste/mix and match in ways that merely reveal more about their own predilections for Gnostic control than anything else? For that is what is really going on here folks!
Cut 'n' paste; pick 'n' mix; ultimately the folly in this form of Christianity is its lack of a decent systematic theology undergirding its progressive goals.
Post a Comment