Liminal Christianity

Euthyphro Are things good because God says so or does God say they are good because they already are? Saying they are good simply because God says so seems to leave open the possibility of a world where slaughtering infants was good, but saying they are good and God just reports that fact seems to infringe upon God's freedom. Solutions vary, but all I'm aware of try to somehow collapse the distinction. Either you say that things are good because a loving God says so, or you say that God causes things to be good be creating the world in a certain way and then reports on the normative facts he created in creating the world.  I think it is helpful to distinguish here between three distinct sorts of grounding relations: 1. Ontological grounding: what makes it the case that x (where x is a way things are ethically or morally). This is (primarily, at least) what the Euthyphro dilemma is about. 2. Epistemological grounding: how do we know that p (where p is some proposition in ethics

“In the beginning was the word,” here John is making an allusion to Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created...” but there is another allusion: to “the word.” The allusion here is to wisdom as developed especially in Proverbs, by which God laid the foundations of the world.   We can say that at the very root of everything, there was an ordering principle. And now John adds “and the Word was with God.” which we actually already knew from Proverbs, where wisdom says "God possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." (Prob 8:22). But John goes further: not only was the Word with God, but “the Word was God.” Now we would be confused if we were the original readers of this text: the Word was with God and the Word was God. John seems to be saying that the Word is and is not identical with God! If you are a good monotheist, this causes trouble for you. Christmas causes trouble for you, because it is God becoming flesh, yet this God become flesh is dist

Baptists have a reputation as “Fighting Baptists” which is usually considered a bad reputation. I believe, however, that it arises from certain doctrines which we should hold dear and, when we fight in line with these doctrines, is something to be proud of. The doctrines of “Soul Freedom” and the “Priesthood of All Believers,” at least as I understand them, stand against any hierarchical imposition of belief and demand that we permit and encourage each person to come to Christ on the basis of their own judgement of the facts of Scripture and the superiority of Christ. We see clearly that no one is born into the Spiritual Kingdom of God, nor is anyone converted by force or manipulation. We hold to doctrines which should make us the most honest and passionate of arguers. Once we understand that the call of the Church is to admonish one another in the Word and to call the world to repentance, as well as the simple fact that we are nevertheless still imperfect in our understanding of the G

Babylon and Ur "Where would you go instead?" That is a question I am asked when I mention that I might leave my current church. It is worth noting that, while it is a valid question in healthy circumstances, it also bears disturbing resemblance to tactics of abuse. "No one else will love you." "Every workplace is at least as bad as us--but we're fine." My answer has wound up like this: If things are bad enough, if I fit in poorly enough, maybe it is with me as it was with Abram and the Lord is calling me out of the land of my forefather into a place he will show me. The question is: am I in Ur, being called to leave in faith, or am I in Babylon, being called to stay and seek the good of the land where God has placed me? How do I tell the difference? Well, there is the conundrum, right? When you are inside, it feels like you should give Babylon a chance. Maybe they aren't so bad, maybe they will finally hear me, maybe I'm expecting too much... B

We mean things with words. Words mean things. These two can come apart. What I mean and what my words mean can be two different things. Sometimes I mean well, but choose my words poorly. Sometimes I have poor intent, but my words don't carry it through. For better or worse, our words and their meanings can be critiqued independently of what someone might know about how we meant them. This is incredibly important in our time of deconstruction. If someone with a platform speaks in a manner which is harmful or which means something wrong, they are responsible for their words, not just what they intended to mean when they wrote or said them. It is their responsibility to understand language well enough to make their writing mean what they want to mean with their writing. If they fail, they admit failure and revise what they said, they can note that they did not understand how what they said might be taken, but what they have no ability to do in defense is to say, simply, "that is