April Free Book of the Month

Page 2 of 3 (49 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 48 Replies | 5 Followers

Posts 29673
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 4:57 PM

Michael S.:

Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM?

Eye roll ...if you don't like it don't push your theology on me. We all put up with a great deal that we consider "false, junk, trash, misleading, uninformed, ignorant, biased, heretical, schismatic, dangerously unChristian, . . ."

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 737
Kiyah | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 5:36 PM

I'm going through it right now. It's actually pretty decent. However, as others have said, Logos should have included a transcript, otherwise it's not much use after you watch the videos. He's saying a lot of good stuff, sure would have been nice to have it in writing, tagged, and searchable.

Posts 7516
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 6:00 PM

MJ. Smith:

Michael S.:

Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM?

Eye roll ...if you don't like it don't push your theology on me. We all put up with a great deal that we consider "false, junk, trash, misleading, uninformed, ignorant, biased, heretical, schismatic, dangerously unChristian, . . ."

πŸ‘πŸ˜πŸ‘Œ

Posts 2933
Doc B | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 7:22 PM

MJ. Smith:
don't push your theology on me

MJ, for someone as intelligent as you are, I'm a bit stunned by your irrational response to his statement.  There was absolutely *nothing* in his comment pushing any theology on anyone. He simply doesn't like Wright. He stated so in a vernacular way.

He should be free to say he doesn't care for this or that author without pushback from (particularly) any of the MVPs.

C'mon, man!! You're better than that!

My thanks to the various MVPs. Without them Logos would have died early. They were the only real help available.

Faithlife Corp. owes the MVPs free resources for life.

Posts 2088
Joseph Turner | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 7:37 PM

Doc B:

MJ. Smith:
don't push your theology on me

MJ, for someone as intelligent as you are, I'm a bit stunned by your irrational response to his statement.  There was absolutely *nothing* in his comment pushing any theology on anyone. He simply doesn't like Wright. He stated so in a vernacular way.

He should be free to say he doesn't care for this or that author without pushback from (particularly) any of the MVPs.

C'mon, man!! You're better than that!

In all fairness, he did imply that Wright isn't a Christian, or a "solid Christian," as it was put.  Several people said that they would pass without casting aspersions on Wright's salvation.  I think the original comment was unnecessary.  

Disclaimer:  I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication.  If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.

Posts 245
MWW | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 8:02 PM

Joseph Turner:
I think the original comment was unnecessary.

Yes

Posts 4960
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 8:58 PM

MJ. Smith:

Michael S.:

Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM?

Eye roll ...if you don't like it don't push your theology on me. We all put up with a great deal that we consider "false, junk, trash, misleading, uninformed, ignorant, biased, heretical, schismatic, dangerously unChristian, . . ."

Yes Except for my Bibles, you just described my entire $40K+ Logos library.

To paraphrase Woody Allen, "The food here is terrible...and such small portions, too."

Posts 367
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 11:57 PM

MJ. Smith:

Michael S.:

Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM?

Eye roll ...if you don't like it don't push your theology on me. We all put up with a great deal that we consider "false, junk, trash, misleading, uninformed, ignorant, biased, heretical, schismatic, dangerously unChristian, . . ."

πŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌπŸ‘πŸΌ

Posts 367
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Apr 1 2020 11:59 PM

Joseph Turner:

Doc B:

MJ. Smith:
don't push your theology on me

MJ, for someone as intelligent as you are, I'm a bit stunned by your irrational response to his statement.  There was absolutely *nothing* in his comment pushing any theology on anyone. He simply doesn't like Wright. He stated so in a vernacular way.

He should be free to say he doesn't care for this or that author without pushback from (particularly) any of the MVPs.

C'mon, man!! You're better than that!

In all fairness, he did imply that Wright isn't a Christian, or a "solid Christian," as it was put.  Several people said that they would pass without casting aspersions on Wright's salvation.  I think the original comment was unnecessary.  

Exactly!  And two can play the “heretical” insinuation. πŸ‘

Posts 29673
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 12:21 AM

Doc B:

He should be free to say he doesn't care for this or that author without pushback from (particularly) any of the MVPs.

As has been noted by others, many said that they did not care for the author; only one was chosen for pushback. I honestly don't care whether some one likes or dislikes Wright - I have no problem with people stating that they like or dislike him. But I don't need the "infamous" or the implication of "not solid Christian". And I should be free to say I dislike people telling me who is or is not Christian/solid Christian/true Christian ... I trust no human's opinion on that matter. 

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1190
Sean | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 1:27 AM

MJ. Smith:
I trust no human's opinion on that matter. 

And I wonder how many who make such comments have done significant reading of Wright. (As my profile picture suggests, I have done a lot of reading in Barth. I have found through systematic study that a huge percentage of people who condemn his theology have never actually read him, instead relying on the reviews of "solid" people they trust. Unfortunately, I have also found that many such reviews are 180 degrees from what Barth actually said.)

I'm not really interested in the Pauline debates, but Wright's book on the resurrection is one of the best things I've ever read; "solid" is a particularly apt word for it. I humbly recommend it to anyone looking for a new perspective on Wright.

Posts 5
Tanner | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 5:12 AM

A few months ago people didn't believe that Logos was pushing more and more NT Wright. I'll do a hard pass. Love Logos, discouraged by the trend.

Posts 2617
Jan Krohn | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 6:01 AM

By the way, this deal is much better than the +1.

https://www.logos.com/product/37659/dictionary-of-scripture-and-ethics

Past IT Consultant. Past Mission Worker. Entrepreneur. Future Seminary Student.
Why Amazon sucks: Full background story of my legal dispute with the online giant

Posts 1190
Sean | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 6:48 AM

Jan Krohn:

By the way, this deal is much better than the +1.

https://www.logos.com/product/37659/dictionary-of-scripture-and-ethics

Great find, Jan! Looks interesting but I'm really having to be careful with my spending these days.

Does anyone have this? How are articles--how much interaction with contemporary theology and ethics? How does it compare to the older IVP Dictionary Christian Ethics & Pastoral Care,(if anyone knows that work)?

Posts 10746
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 7:03 AM

Denise:

I Didn't Know God Made Honky Tonk Angels

Don't forget Kitty Wells' response that God Didn't Make Honky Tonk Angels Stick out tongue

Posts 1463
Wild Eagle | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 7:24 AM

MJ. Smith:

Michael S.:

Ugh, the infamous NT Wright again... can we get solid Christians for the FBOM?

Eye roll ...if you don't like it don't push your theology on me. We all put up with a great deal that we consider "false, junk, trash, misleading, uninformed, ignorant, biased, heretical, schismatic, dangerously unChristian, . . ."

Yes, I never had a professor with whom I agreed 100%. In fact, I don't agree with many things I believed just a few years ago. But, at the same time we all can chew the meat and spit out the bones.

"No man is greater than his prayer life. The pastor who is not praying is playing; the people who are not praying are straying." Leonard Ravenhill 

Posts 4096
Mattillo | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 7:36 AM

Sean:

Jan Krohn:

By the way, this deal is much better than the +1.

https://www.logos.com/product/37659/dictionary-of-scripture-and-ethics

Great find, Jan! Looks interesting but I'm really having to be careful with my spending these days.

Does anyone have this? How are articles--how much interaction with contemporary theology and ethics? How does it compare to the older IVP Dictionary Christian Ethics & Pastoral Care,(if anyone knows that work)?

I cannot answer how it compares to the other volume you mention but this book is good as an overview.  They are short articles on certain topics and like any dictionary all the articles are written by different people so you are bound to love/hate some.  My only contention with this dictionary is that it doesn't take any sides (in at least the few articles I have read).  I would personally prefer a book on Ethics that picks a side and defends it rather than one that just gives an overview... but for $10 I don't think you can go wrong on this one.  My personal favorites in this area are Grudem and Geisler.

Here is a hot-button topic article for your sampling pleasure:

Homosexuality

The term homosexuality refers to a primary relational and sexual orientation toward a member of the same sex, in contrast to heterosexuality (primary orientation toward a member of the opposite sex).

Since the late 1960s the status of persons with a homosexual orientation within religion and society has been one of the most debated and divisive issues to arise, whether for Christian ethicists, biblical scholars, mental health professionals, biologists, advocates of ballot initiatives, legislative bodies, or denominational deliberations (both in the United States and abroad). The use of the term homosexuality itself has been much debated in public discourse, and many individuals who identify themselves as having an orientation to the same sex prefer the designation LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered), particularly because it includes a broader and more nuanced range of orientations than simply homosexuality. The modern debate and discord over homosexuality has often been identified as beginning with the rise of the gay rights movement in the aftermath of the Stonewall Riots in New York City in 1969, a movement that has slowly but surely resulted in increased civil rights and legal protections for LGBT individuals, including marriage in some states. A fundamental question within the church has been whether the full inclusion of LGBT persons of faith represents a prophetic movement of God’s Spirit parallel to the full inclusion of women and racial/ethnic minorities in the church, or whether it represents a movement away from fidelity to a normative understanding of human sexuality as revealed in Scripture and tradition. The place of reason and experience as sources of authority and revelation that both contextualize and relativize understandings of Scripture and tradition on homosexuality has also been an issue of much debate and disagreement among ethicists and biblical scholars alike.

Translating Words and Cultures

Six texts in the Bible deal directly with homosexual sex: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19:1–10; the Holiness Code in Lev. 18:2020:13; Paul’s statements in Rom. 1:26–27, and his passing remarks in 1 Cor. 6:91 Tim. 1:10 (though some question Pauline authorship of the latter book). The interpretive challenge in each text has to do with the translation of Hebrew words from the OT and Greek words from the NT, as well as with the translation of ancient cultures for modern times.

The translation issue in Gen. 19 revolves around the desire of the Sodomites to “know” (yādaΚΏ) the visitors whom Lot is hosting (v. 5). The Hebrew term yādaΚΏ can also have overtones of sexual intercourse, which seems to be the intention in this passage. While the NRSV translates the Hebrew phrase as “that we may know them,” the NAB translates it as “that we may have intimacies with them,” and the NIV as “that we can have sex with them.” The passage clearly suggests sexual violence, indeed homosexual rape, as a way for the Sodomites to dominate the foreign men visiting their town. Lot correctly sees their desire as a wicked thing and offers his two daughters to the mob as a lesser evil than violating his duty of offering hospitality to his guests. Little do the Sodomites know that these guests are angels sent by God to destroy the city. The Sodomites’ wicked desires only confirm God’s judgment. But does the passage indicate that all forms of same-sex relations or desires are evil in the sight of God? Certainly, homosexual rape is condemned, but it seems quite a step to condemn all forms of homosexual expression on the basis of this passage about sexual violence. This would be tantamount to condemning all forms of heterosexual expression because King David was guilty of adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah. For this reason, many ethicists and biblical scholars do not view Gen. 19 as having probative value for the debate over homosexuality in the modern world.

The issue in Lev. 18:2020:13 has less to do with translation and more to do with the larger context of the Holiness Code, which sets forth strict rules for the Israelites as they are about to take possession of the promised land. They must not engage in any of the idolatrous activities of the Canaanites, the former occupants of the land. The difficulty here is translating cultures, since Leviticus also bars practices such as cross-breeding animals, sowing two kinds of seed in one field, wearing garments made of two different materials, rounding the hair on one’s temples, marring the edges of one’s beard, or receiving a tattoo (19:1927–2821:5), cultural practices that today Christians see as having no particular significance for religious faith, even though the prohibitions are in the Bible. In addition, Leviticus provides a rationale for neither the prohibition in general (18:20) nor the extreme punishment in particular (20:13). Are modern people of faith to pick and choose among the various Levitical prohibitions and punishments? If so, on what basis? Thus, although the Levitical codes clearly condemn same-sex relations, the larger context of these prohibitions, as well as the penalty of death, have complicated how such condemnation should be understood or enacted today within the Christian community.

The most significant biblical passage to address the question about same-sex relations is Rom. 1:24–27. This is the only biblical passage that discusses both male and female same-sex activity. The passage emphasizes individuals with “degrading passions,” “burning with lust,” and engaging in “unnatural” activities that are shameful and perverse. The presumptions about excessive lust and the violation of natural law are important to highlight in this context. In what ways are homosexual desires more lustful than heterosexual desires? Paul’s understanding appears to be that only male-female relations are natural. In the twenty-first century, however, the question about what is “natural” or “unnatural” in regard to human sexuality has become rather controversial. Some argue that individuals are born with a sexual orientation of which they become aware as they mature, and that both heterosexual and homosexual orientations are natural, even though the vast majority of individuals are heterosexual. Others would argue that God’s intention was for all humankind to be heterosexual, and that homosexuality is a result of human sin that affects even our DNA. In this view, homosexual persons cannot be blamed for their orientation, but nonetheless they must refrain from acting on it. In the Roman Catholic tradition this view is clearly expressed in the papal encyclical The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986). A related difficulty is that neither Paul nor his contemporaries within the patriarchal context of antiquity had any concept of sexual orientation as a way of understanding human sexuality.

In 1 Cor. 6:9–10 we again come upon a crucial translation issue. The passage occurs in the context of a vice list that includes behaviors contrary to God’s will. Paul states that “wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God,” referring to “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers.” The translation issue arises with the Greek terms malakoi and arsenokoitai, which the NRSV renders as “male prostitutes” and “sodomites.” A literal translation would be something like “soft people” and “men who go to bed,” though clearly something far more colloquial is meant—perhaps “male prostitutes and the men who hire their services”? The range of standard translations indicates how difficult the passage is: “boy prostitutes nor sodomites” (NAB), “male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” (NIV), “both participants in same-sex intercourse” (CEB), “male prostitutes, homosexuals” (NLT), “passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals” (NET), “homosexual perverts” (TEV), and “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV). The use of “sodomites” by the NRSV is unfortunate because it presumes a connection between the story of Gen. 19 and 1 Cor. 6 (1 Tim. 1:10 involves similar issues). Similarly, the use of “homosexual” is problematic because it suggests that the biblical authors had an understanding of homosexuality that parallels our contemporary understanding, resulting in potentially anachronistic readings of Scripture.

The cultural question has to do with what forms of homoerotic activity Paul knew about in his day. Like most Jews of his day, he seems to presume heterosexual expression as the norm, though his own preference is for celibacy (1 Cor. 7:7). As best we can tell, Paul would have known about pederasty and prostitution. Does his condemnation of these forms of same-sex relations in the first century indicate a blanket condemnation of all forms of same-sex relations in our time with our understanding of human sexuality? This question points to a larger debate in modern Christianity for which the issue of homosexuality has become a litmus test. The debate is between different groups of Christians who line up on different sides of a range of issues. What is the authority of Scripture, and how should it be interpreted? To what degree has God created humans with normative and essential standards of sexual ethics that transcend time and space? What role do human experience and reason play in discerning the leading of God’s Spirit? Are same-sex relations to be condemned as a violation of God’s revealed will, or are they to be celebrated as another expression of God’s revealed will for human sexuality?

Those with a high view of Scripture and the continuity of tradition tend toward a more conservative approach to these questions. In this view, a homosexual orientation is not itself a sin, but it is a cross to bear and a desire that must be resisted. This approach emphasizes that the Bible makes no room for a positive evaluation of same-sex relations, and that the constant teaching of the church has been to condemn all forms of homosexual expression. Homosexuality is seen as a disordered condition that can, in some cases, be changed and corrected through various forms of therapy and counseling. For some who hold this view, homosexuality is not necessarily an orientation but rather a chosen set of behaviors contrary to God’s will.

Those who value human reason and experience as interpretive guides for a contextual understanding of Scripture tend toward a more liberal or progressive approach to such questions. In this view, a same-sex orientation is simply a different orientation from heterosexuality and is intrinsically no better or worse, and certainly not sinful. Those advocating a more inclusive approach to LGBT individuals often appeal to the disciplines of psychiatry and biology as important resources for aiding our developing understanding of human sexuality in contrast to the biblical prohibitions of same-sex relations. The term homosexuality itself was coined in the late nineteenth century in German psychological literature. Definition and understanding of the term have evolved and changed over the last century. The first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association [APA]) identified “homosexuality” as a sociopathic personality disorder, while DSM-II (1968) defined it as a sexual deviation. In 1973 the APA revised DSM-II so that the general category of “homosexuality” was eliminated and replaced by “sexual orientation disturbance.” This was a controversial change because it indicated a clear shift within the psychiatric community, which increasingly viewed a homosexual orientation as nonpathological, whereas the individual’s struggle to accept his or her homosexual identity became the psychiatric problem to be addressed. This change was codified in DSM-III (1980, revised 1987), and in DSM-IV (1994, revised 2000) “homosexuality” was removed and replaced with the more generic and relatively vague “gender identity disorder,” referring to individuals with significant anxiety about their sexual or gender identity.

Other questions have to do with whether it is important that Jesus said nothing directly about same-sex relations in any of his recorded teaching. Did he simply presume the cultural norms of his day, even though apparently he was celibate? Is Jesus’ reference in Mark 10:1–12 to Gen. 1:272:24 a tacit endorsement of heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman? Do the different approaches to marriage sanctioned in the Bible (multiple wives, concubines, levirate marriage) suggest openness to changing understandings of marriage and sexuality?

Homosexuality and Ecclesial Communities

Both the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations have conducted multiyear studies on homosexuality and have issued lengthy findings that often encourage more understanding and acceptance of LGBT persons within the church but stop short of endorsing anything other than heterosexual marriage as God’s intention for appropriate human sexual expression. Significantly, within the Roman Catholic Church the primary issue revolves around procreation, to which all human sexual expressions must be open. In this view, then, by definition sexual relations between people of the same gender are immoral because they cannot create new life. By contrast, within most Protestant denominations the primary issue revolves around ordination and the question of whether ordained LGBT individuals can appropriately model Christian marriage. Thus far, most denominations have answered this question in the negative. The primary exception to this is the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church in America and in Canada. The Metropolitan Community Church (founded in 1968) is the most open denomination toward the full inclusion of LGBT persons. Within the Roman Catholic Church the question of ordination has nothing to do with marriage, since priests are by definition celibate.

And so the debates over homosexuality continue in one Christian community after another, with people of good faith holding firmly to their respective views on both sides of this clear divide. The debate over the status of homosexual persons within the church has a corollary with the larger societal debates over issues such as same-sex marriage, the constitutionality of laws limiting the rights of homosexual persons, and the call from various constituencies for full acceptance of LGBT individuals within society at large. The Bible serves as a key touchstone for this conversation within the church, though its interpretation, relevance, and application in relation to homosexuality remain points of significant contention, especially as interpreters seek to correlate and integrate the biblical witness with other sources of authority—tradition, reason, and experience.

See also Sexual Ethics

Bibliography

Alison, J. Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay. Crossroad, 2001; Grenz, S. Welcoming but Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality. Westminster John Knox, 1998; Jones, S., and M. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate. IVP Academic, 2000; Nissinen, M. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Fortress, 1998; Rogers, J. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. Rev. ed. Westminster John Knox, 2009; Siker, J., ed. Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood Press, 2007; idem, ed. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Westminster John Knox, 1994; Sullivan, A. Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality. Vintage Books, 1996; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers. United States Catholic Conference, 1997; Via, D., and R. Gagnon. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. Fortress, 2003; White, M. Stranger Beyond the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America. Plume, 1995.

Jeffrey S. Siker

Posts 1483
Rick Ausdahl | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 7:58 AM

Denise:

Thank you, Ken. A nice pairing to Mark Smith's new volume that downloaded.

Which of Mark Smith's volume is this?

Posts 1698
Ken McGuire | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Apr 2 2020 8:34 AM

Mattillo:

Here is a hot-button topic article for your sampling pleasure:

Homosexuality

Impressively balanced presentation in my opinion. IIRC, I heard good things about this reference work when it came out, and so also noticed it at a great price on the sale page. That said, I was hemming and hawing over getting it. I did purchase https://www.logos.com/product/144129/dictionary-of-luther-and-the-lutheran-traditions however. In a brief examination, I have been impressed with its articles on the background of the Reformation, as well as short biographies of many Lutheran figures over the ages. 

The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann

L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Basic, Academic Essentials

L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze

Posts 47
Chi Shun Cheung | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Apr 3 2020 8:39 PM

Agreed. I love logos, but I am really sick of the push for NT Wright. There are a lot more other authors that should be promoted or highlighted. 

Page 2 of 3 (49 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS