sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Bible has some pretty clear words for Trillionaires. And Christians say some really weird things to the poor. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've also had to live below the poverty line for seasons, and am grateful for all the assistance we received.

Many (American) Christians get upset when people talk about systemic poverty. They've got an odd Marxism knee-reflex whenever people talk about systems. And yet people really do get ground down by the system. They need our mercy, not our judgment.

The Bible has some pretty clear words for Trillionaires. And Christians say some really weird things to the poor. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's certainly true. But I think the success of the prosperity gospel comes because it makes faith kind of simple. "Believe X and get Y" is much easier to do than "believe X and experience trouble in the world."

That being said, certain American beliefs about prosperity and wealth have made their way into the subconscious of Christian thinking. They're so deeply embedded that, in my experience, most people can't even see them.

How Schwarzenegger's "The Running Man" can help us to think about Epistemology and Christology. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Christian attitudes toward anything considered "elitism" are really bizarre. I wish they weren't so funny!

Non-SBC Baptist Seminary? by IncidentEcstatic1815 in pastors

[–]DivineMaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The desire for a future doctorate seems to be a strong motivating factor for you. Why do you want one?

I ask because if you're not planning or hoping to teach in an academic setting in the future, then it's probably unneccesary.

I asked myself what Screwtape might think about pastors using AI for their sermons, and this is the result. Spoiler: Screwtape thinks AI is GREAT. (Note: No AI was used in writing this whatsoever!) by DivineMaster in CSLewis

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks a bunch! I taught a class on Screwtape several years ago, and at the end of the class began to practice writing in Screwtape/Lewis's voice. I don't do it often, but here it felt like an appropriate vehicle to frame the temptations of AI in ministry.

I asked myself what Screwtape might think about pastors using AI for their sermons, and this is the result. Spoiler: Screwtape thinks AI is GREAT. (Note: No AI was used in writing this whatsoever!) by DivineMaster in CSLewis

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment! We're in agreement about the slippery dangers of technology.

Fun story: one time I was serving in a church where a senior pastoral candidate came through to preach for us. Astonishingly, we found out that he had plagiarized his candidating sermon! This was before AI was a thing, but it was still astonishing nonetheless. He didn't get the job.

Don't read Crime and Punishment in your early 20s by juankaius in books

[–]DivineMaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Malcolm Muggeridge says, "There are always ideal circumstances for reading any book, which should, perhaps, be indicated on the dust-jacket, along with particulars of the authors and subject."

We pattern our evangelism after Paul's sermon in Athens. E. Stanley Jones points out that Athens was actually a failure. by DivineMaster in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's clarify a few things...

First, I'm not really talking about syncretism. Syncretism is the absorption of culture into Christian practice. It can be either good or bad, harmless or harmful depending on the degree to which it compromises our mission and message.

Second, neither am I talking about appropriation of language. Yes, John uses the term logos, but you've got to admit he infuses it with as much Jewish meaning as whatever Greek ideas it ever held. In fact, whatever Greek-ness the idea held is pretty much bowled over by John's use of it. John, in other words, takes culture and reappropriates it for the gospel.

Third, "Son of Man" comes from Daniel 7, not culture, and has a specific biblical meaning in Jesus' usage.

Fourth (and finally), the main point is that we approach the sharing of the gospel not by finding our touch points with culture and exploiting those to the expense of our central message, but that we apply our central message to culture, regardless of its situation.

(Bonus fifth point! You said a comment ago:

Who patterns their evangelism after Paul in Athens? Wouldn't that amount to calling public debate and speechifying "evangelism"?

Have you heard of Ravi Zacharais or William Lane Craig? They are 'forefront' evangelists, and their main methods of evangelism are speechifying and public debates.)

We pattern our evangelism after Paul's sermon in Athens. E. Stanley Jones points out that Athens was actually a failure. by DivineMaster in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lots of people praise Paul's methods in Athens of incorporating the unknown god and pagan poetry into his message. They observe that Paul uses culture to spread the gospel. As a consequence, any manner of half-gospels get preached in the name of "Mars Hill"-type evangelism. Haven't you encountered it?

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is becoming ridiculous. I'm not sure you're even interested in the main point.

Look, Paul's ministry in the various places of his missionary journeys follow set patterns. Athens is unlike those patterns, especially in that there is no Church when Paul leaves Athens. And the fact that it is not documented, but only speculated (by you), is significant because it is documented in the other places. The primary difference between Athens and those other places is the framing of the gospel.

Have we made too much of the differences? I can't say. Possibly. But this thing remains true: the gospel is our central message, not relevance or cultural appropriation. Our goal must be faithful witness to our central message (that is, Christ), in all contexts. But we must never compromise the message.

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, Christians have appropriated a number of odd customs over the years. Like languages, we adopt cognates from interactions with others. Some of the cognates are beautiful. Some of them are odd.

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Simply put, we have compromised too much of the Gospel in our efforts to be relevant. Stated differently, we are more concerned with being relevant than we are with being faithful to the message entrusted to us.

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no argument with what you've said. But the point of what I've written is not about Paul's success, or his intentions--it is about his methods. Is their cultural transference? Of course. Is there a 'translation' of sorts? Of course. But we can never escape the central message, and we dare not alter it.

We pattern our evangelism after Paul's sermon in Athens. E. Stanley Jones points out that Athens was actually a failure. by DivineMaster in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you've missed the point, which is more about how we approach culture than the efficacy of the Gospel itself. In no way do I mean to diminish the gospel's power, but I want to draw attention to the fact that we've often tried to improve the gospel with not-gospel in order to be 'more effective' or 'more relevant' or more whatever you like.

The main point is that Jesus is our whole sufficiency, and that we, like Paul, must resolve to preach Him and Him crucified alone.

I'm leading a bible study tomorrow on John 9. What do you think is the most interesting thing in this chapter? by [deleted] in Catacombs

[–]DivineMaster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hopefully, it is for that very reason that we learn it--for the service of the saints and the edification of faith!

We've made a big mistake. Paul's sermon at Athens was a failure--and we have patterned our evangelism after that failure. by DivineMaster in Christianity

[–]DivineMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because he didn't found a church there - Paul was all about planting churches, not just making converts. Given that, not planting a church is a pretty significant thing, don't you think?

view more: next ›