Comments for Codexegesis

Comment on Comparing Two Kingdoms – Ken by kirkwh

kirkwh — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:58:43 +0000

Christians must be profoundly concerned with their culture, which of course, is comprised of the people in that culture. Preach the Gospel which addresses the root of the problem(s) and the culture will take care of itself – or not – but it’s God’s choice how it turns out.

Comment on Comparing Two Kingdoms – Ken by crowdeddesert

crowdeddesert — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:58:50 +0000

I will respond to your comment, MG, in an upcoming post. I’ll work through the book in a series of posts, and so will answer you in one of those. Thank you for your comments.

Comment on Comparing Two Kingdoms – Ken by MG

MG — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:10:38 +0000

So you view the West as nothing more than “our society.” Is it not true that the West is uniquely shaped by the Christian faith, and that this accounts for the unique tradition of elevating human dignity that sets Western tradition apart from modern atheism and militant Islam? I totally agree that we should not confuse the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. But surely you can recognize, even in this time of moral and intellectual disarray, the profound and beneficial influence that the heavenly kingdom has had on the Western tradition. To imply that taking a particular interest in preserving the West — which happens to have been a primary vehicle through which the faith has been and continues to be handed down, I might add — is somehow provincial and insufficiently missions-minded seems to me to come dangerously close to denying the transformative effect of the gospel on culture. Even granting the need to re-evangelize the West (with which, again, I totally agree), isn’t your disdain for the preservation and renewal of Western culture profoundly un-Reformed?

Comment on My favorite open theist – Ken by crowdeddesert

crowdeddesert — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:20:52 +0000

Thanks, Brad, for your comment. I will definitely read your story, as I’m intrigued by what you’ve posted here. I also appreciate your friendly, non-combative approach as well, as that will make for a rewarding dialog. I know Dave’s not too hot on Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation, so we’ll see what he thinks about open theism.
Thanks much!

Comment on My favorite open theist – Ken by Brad

Brad — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:24:52 +0000

Hi Ken,

I came across your blog because we both used the tag open theism. My blog is at theopenfuture.org. If you or Dave are looking for someone to further your discussions about open theism, please consider dropping by.

I am an open theist, but have just recently come to that perspective. Before I became aware of the open theist position I had pretty much abandoned my faith and walked away from God. There’s a very long story about this on my blog and you can read it if you want.

I would love to have others who do not share my position to provide comments and feedback because I honestly believe that, as you said in your post above, dialog between positions is beneficial for all. I don’t believe that open theism is a huge pillar of our faith but I am quite enthusiastic about it because it was the tool that God used to finally get through to me and break down the barriers that I had put up to keep Him out of my life.

One could argue that this was my experience of God’s irresistible grace and I would love to explore that further…

Comment on Rambo the Messiah – Ken by MG

MG — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:15:09 +0000

I’m glad you’re blogging again, Ken. I’m subscribed via my Google reader.

Some of the greatest works in the West have drawn on Christian imagery to explore the significance of the Christian narrative and illuminate human experience. Some of the tawdriest works of “art” have simply pressed such imagery into service of the makers’ private agendas, adding nothing to our collective reflection on the tradition and in many cases utterly disregarding it. Drawing the line between art and mere entertainment is very hard to do, but your discussion of Rambo gives us one place to start. Even the post-Christian heart stirs when it sees a crucifix. It is unfortunate that Stallone apparently wants to use this image to roil the emotions but shirks his responsibility to help direct them to their proper end. Or so I assume; I haven’t seen the movie.

Comment on My favorite open theist – Ken by nathanwells

nathanwells — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:30:54 +0000

Hi Ken,

You said,

their reading of Scripture informs their understanding of God and his foreknowledge.

But does it really? Because, in my understanding, they ignore much of Scripture, picking and choosing which passages align with their preconceived notion of human freedom.

Can you give some examples?

Comment on The Myth of a Christian Nation – Ken by virginqueen

virginqueen — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 02:39:29 +0000

He’s right, Dad. Get on the ball! Poor Ken’s been doing all the work.

Comment on Zechariah’s incense – Ken by crowdeddesert

crowdeddesert — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:09:37 +0000

Thanks, Max, for your thoughts on this. I agree that saying the name “Yahweh” in preaching feels exotic to the listener. But it’s that foreign aspect that can shake us out of a careless hearing of the person of the LORD, reintroducing the congregation to the God who is both the tribal deity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and at the same time the global/universal ruler of creation. I find that familiarity is the problem, because the widespread familiarity is with an enculturated Lord, rather than the Lord of the Bible, who in the Old Testament is identified as Yahweh. And your mentioning the New Testament gives me the idea that I should start saying Kurios for Lord when preaching on those books.

Comment on Zechariah’s incense – Ken by maxjgoss

maxjgoss — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:43:48 +0000

Merry Christmas, Ken. I’m up with the baby — a perfect time to blog.

This is a wonderful blog. It has taken me this long to find something to disagree with.

How is accuracy served by inserting a Hebrew expression (or an Anglicized facsimile thereof) into a sermon delivered in English? This seems unnecessarily exotic for most American audiences. Surely “the LORD” is more apt than “Yahweh” for conveying familiarity (due to its NT uses) together with distance and majesty (due to its uses in versions of the OT with which most of us are acquainted).