Seminary students, in my experience, are perennially shocked when they read passages from the Koran that feature Jesus or Abraham.
Some of them also get really angry when Allah is translated as "God."
All of this is the result of "othering" people who believe differently
I don't mean to say that there aren't clear distinctions, but the biggest struggle I have found among all students has been getting them to see those of different religions as good, rational and loving people
We have got to do better.
Sharing the gospel isn't about this technique or that. It's not about finding the exact right words or luring people in.
We aren't fire insurance salespeople
Instead, as you get to really know someone, you'll want to share your core identity.
If you're in good relationship, they'll want to know that core identity.
If you're a Christian, that should be at your core identity
Sharing this doesn't mean people will automatically agree. That's not the point (and if it was, that's not a genuine relationship).
However, maybe they're now more open to having those conversations, especially if you listen earnestly to them
That's what gospel, good news, actually does.
If you've ever had a friend go on a big trip, they can't wait to tell you about it, even if it's not one you would ever go on yourself.
This is much bigger and deeper
So we've got to move away from apologetics, flashy evangelism methods, big events to draw people in and then switch the program to manipulate then into the kingdom.
We've got to listen, to learn, and to let others teach us what they believe you let them know it's safe
Just been reflecting on all of this as I near the end of another semester
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, champion of the Nicene Creed, original defender of Orthodoxy against Arianism, was Black.
Yet, with the exception of a handful of the oldest icons of him, he is normally depicted in white, European skin tones
He was described by friends as being "short of stature" and with dark skin tone. His enemies' favorite written perjorative was "the black dwarf." He was an Egyptian (oh yeah, ethnic Egyptians (not the later Greek/Roman occupiers) were also Black)
Why does this matter? Because Jonathan Edwards thought that Black people were necessarily inferior to white people. Because too often there is a view in churches that most of Church history is about white people
This is a thread about Texas politics (and @GregAbbott_TX specifically). If you're not from Texas, sorry.
Greg Abbott is up for reelection in 2022. Let's talk about why he needs to be voted out. I don't care if it's a republican or a democrat, he just needs to be out (1/)
In 1986 Abbott won a massive lawsuit against the homeowner and the tree removal company that left him in a wheelchair. And I do not want to begrudge him any of that. He's issue a monthly stipend and regular lump sums. He should be, they took his legs (2/)
However, as a politician, Abbott has fought hard to limit the amount of damages anyone may be awarded in a lawsuit in Texas. The total settlement for Abbott is approaching $11 million. The limit on similar suits is now $750,000 (3/)
Here's something that we don't talk about enough in churches. Music is very evocative and emotive. As such it is very easy to be used manipulatively.
In college, I had more than one conversation with music majors about how certain chord progressions can make you feel (1/7)
Some create a euphoric endorphin rush. Others will move you to tears. Not a single play of it, but when put into certain types of progression and layered well, yes. This is why certain songs always have that feeling. That's not inherently a bad thing
However, there is also a well established technique that loud repetitive sounds make one more susceptible to suggestion.
Other than a complex progression and layering of chords, an easier way to elicit an emotional response is to play the same chords over and over
@RedeemedRags I will try to be brief, but I will likely fail because a) I'm pretty verbose and b) there's a lot of variety and nuance within it:
@RedeemedRags CRT, like many Critical Theories, came out of Academic Legal studies. Essentially wanting to know why the gains made in the 1960s in Civil Rights did not continue at the same pacing as during the Civil Rights
@RedeemedRags As a Critical Theory, it roots present conflict in material historical causes (and thus is technically Marxist, but only in the way all Social Sciences are). The cause, here, being slavery and Jim Crow as uniquely distinct from other social ills
Reflecting on Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3, and their converse found in Joel 3 (and the interpretation offered by Jesus in Matthew 26).
God will beat swords into plowshares and spears into fishhooks
Those who stubbornly commit to their instruments of war, and who fight against the way of peace will be destroyed by that very commitment to instruments of violence
This comes out across as an eschatological threat in Joel 3, but in Matthew as a tragic, natural consequence. These two are not necessarily in conflict, especially given the understanding the universe exists and is sustained under God's provision and solely by God's providence
Ok, where to begin. There is so much wrong with this blog that some of it is outright heretical. But let's dive right into.
The biggest mistakes Shenvi makes throughout are primarily overgeneralization based on (his) false assumption and category mistakes. Let's talk about that.
First, let's discuss some of overgeneralizations based on false assumptions. Hardly anyone working in anti-racism is arguing that corporate repentance is required for salvation. Shenvi spends an inordinate amount of time tearing down an argument that, frankly, no one is making
Shenvi also assumes that at issue is only the incidence of past racial sin (specifically Slavery, but we might extrapolate to Jim Crow and other forms of racism). This is not the primary issue. We are concerned with *current* racism