I read a number of news sources and some individual blogs [...]]]> These are five significant sites I read because of the things on which I disagree with the writer(s). That doesn’t mean I disagree with everything, but rather that I was attracted to the site and continue to read primarily because of my disagreement.

I read a number of news sources and some individual blogs on major sites (Huffington Post, Townhall.com, etc), but I’ve avoided those in this list.

• Why Evolution is True
  No, I haven’t changed my mind about evolution. Jerry Coyne is strongly anti-accommodationist, and I believe that acceptance of the theory of evolution is compatible with faith. I don’t believe it’s always easy, but I do believe it’s necessary and right. In spite of disagreements on other issues, this post on past-life regressions is definitely worth a read.
• Adrian Warnock
  I haven’t responded to Adrian as frequently as I used to, but I still read and I still disagree. Adrian is charismatic and Calvinist. I disagree on Calvinism, his view of women in ministry, and generally on the way he defines the essentials of the atonement. I find it worthwhile to be challenged by all those things.
• Pursuing Holiness
  I agree with Laura on most matters of faith, but often disagree on politics. She has the ability to annoy me but still keep me reading. People who annoy me are a valuable resource!
• Pseudopolymath
  This is much more a mixed case of agreements an disagreements. Mark is Eastern Orthodox, and I have a sneaking admiration for the eastern church. He’s conservative politically, on which I very often differ, and on theology and biblical studies things are a bit more mixed. But it’s the disagreements that are the most fun.
• EvolutionBlog
  Again, my disagreement here isn’t regarding evolution as such, but rather with the combination of atheism and anti-accommodationism. I enjoy the style, and am often set to thinking along new lines by reading it.

There are a stack of “also-rans” in my Google reader, and if I wrote this list tomorrow I would probably choose some different blogs, but these will do for now! I’m so disagreeable, there are plenty to choose from.

I got back yesterday from displaying books at Methodist annual conference for Alabama/Northwest Florida. We had the joy of having our daughter Janet join us there to help out, and we got to chat a bit. We were talking about raising children–she has two–and I [...]]]> … or any other human relationship, for that matter.

I got back yesterday from displaying books at Methodist annual conference for Alabama/Northwest Florida. We had the joy of having our daughter Janet join us there to help out, and we got to chat a bit. We were talking about raising children–she has two–and I mentioned how I used to regard myself as completely ignorant of child raising when I was a bachelor, unlike some singles I know, who are pretty certain their children wouldn’t behave “that way!” I noted that when I married Jody, and acquired a ready-made family, I discovered that “completely ignorant” was not an adequate description of the depth of my ignorance!

One observation survived the passage from bachelor to married with children–I had always observed that the particular child-raising theories expressed by the parents seemed not to be reflected in the children. There were disciplinarians with behavioral disasters and seemingly permissive parents with well-behaved, polite children. The one thing I always noticed was that the children of involved parents seemed to do well, while the children of distant or absent parents tended to do, well, not-so-well.

Today I found this wonderful article on Inside Higher Ed. Rosemarie Emanuele, Mama PhD, talks very personally about the mistakes one makes, and the love that is still there–and works.

I loved it! I hope you will too.

Welcome to the blogosphere! Related Posts: Evangelism from an Atheist Perspective On Evangelizing Atheists Marks of a Unified Church On Merry Christmas from Last Year The Problem with Stories Powered by Contextual Related Posts ]]> A long time friend of mine has just started a blog, Caraleisa, with her first post, Giving Thanks, this year . . .. I have hopes she’ll get more controversial, as I know very well she can.

Welcome to the blogosphere!

Here’s the conclusion:

I suspect he’ll talk about antievolution stuff quite a bit, which will be good. [...]]]> I’ve been acquainted with Troy since back in early Religion Forum days. He’s had a web presence for some time, but now he has finally created a blog, Playing Chess with Pigeons (don’t ask me). Welcome to the blogosphere, Troy!

I suspect he’ll talk about antievolution stuff quite a bit, which will be good. He already has a good post on transitional fossils.

HT: Dispatches, where Ed Brayton was also part of the RF crowd in the good old days.

As usual, I want to highlight some posts from the carnival.

There are very few things that haven’t been moved to the new computer, imported, or otherwise sorted out. For those who my have missed the post I switched not only to a new CPU but to a new operating system. I’m now using Ubuntu Linux, after trying it on a separate machine for a few months. I’m thus far very happy with the results. Having the old machine on the same network has made moving stuff pretty easy.

Both Mark Olson (Pseudo-polymath) and Anne (Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength) have written posts discussing justification from a perspective other than the judicial/penal substitution approach. Their posts simply confirm to me that there are many, many valid ways to talk about the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf, and that penal substitution is just one of those. Unlike some, I do not wish to discard it, but I also will not make it the one and only metaphor.

Adrian Warnock has posted twice, first Legalism, Racism, and the First Century Jew, to which I will respond later at some length. I find much to object to in that short post, but I’m also working through Piper’s comments in their context before I blow off steam.

The second one is 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 5 – Two Critical Passages on Justification in which he links an article that I had linked earlier, and says:

If you are interested in seeing an example of this, there is an article by Wright on 2 Corinthians 5:21 [PDF-HN] that I must say I found wholly unconvincing.

I see a great deal of “finding unconvincing” but I see remarkably little actual exegetical argument. The primary form of argument appears to be theological. If the question is whether the new perspectives on Paul differ from prior theological statements, then we can cheerfully answer yes, and go on. But for me the question is whether the new perspective gets us closer to correctly understanding Paul and what he has to say.

One of the keys here is to understand the paradigm shift that several interpreters have taken. If you do not accept that paradigm shift, you are likely not to accept Wright’s specific exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21. That is not surprising, since he is dealing with that verse in the context of that new paradigm. (I am not overly fond of “paradigm shift,” as a term, or at least I don’t think I am, but it seems to me that the new perspectives on Paul do justify that term.)

Peter Kirk blogged on this same topic, and brings up a number of points. I have to say that anyone who implies that Augustine was a theological pygmy is likely to get my favorable attention! But more importantly, Peter points to one side issue, and that is the way in which (some?) reformed theology can make God look like he is a bit veracity-challenged, and can’t truly tell whether people are righteous or not.

Meanwhile, the view that I am working towards is a rejection of the “Reformed” idea that Christians remain sinners in actual fact but are nevertheless, by a legal fiction, counted as righteous in Christ. Instead of this, the picture I have, based on various biblical passages such as Ephesians 4:22-24, is that the Christian consists of two separate persons or personalities: the “old self” (in some versions “old man”, but to be understood of course in a gender generic sense) born by natural birth who is a sinner, guilty, condemned to death and destined to die; and the “new self” born of the Spirit and into Christ, who is righteous, holy, free from condemnation, will not die, and indeed is already living eternal life in God’s kingdom. . . .

Just so. Like Peter, I continue to be in flux on some of these issues. There are boundary lines that I’m fairly certain of, but others I’m studying a great deal, but Peter’s paragraph is one of those that strikes me as promising. When I read it, I feel that he is “with” Paul in a significant way. Perhaps he’ll have to adjust some, as he says, but he’s going the right direction.

I will be blogging a bit more on 2 Corinthians 5 from an exegetical point of view, hopefully in the next few days.