In general, I tend to agree with you. The Gospel can be “Left-resonant”, but there are also ways in which the Gospel is a conservative message. Schnekloth’s problem is that he refuses to acknowledge that latter fact.
A successful congregation, and church body, will be both welcoming to people who have a progressive viewpoint at the same time as welcoming to conservatives who push back against change for its own sake. It will challenge conservatives to find when the Gospel calls us to be more progressive, but will also challenge progressives to recognize when they are losing the Gospel in their desire to be prophetic — i.e., not every so-called prophetic voice carries a Gospel-centered message. Sometimes the local community needs the comfort that comes with tradition and stability.
Once we start learning to live with each other and our differences within the Christian community, we will be one step closer to living out the Gospel truth as a Christian community, recognizing the need for both prophetic voices “afflicting the comfortable” as well as the more traditional priestly voices of “comforting the afflicted.”
These are fair points. I have an interview with Schnekloth on my Future Christian podcast. We talk more about his book and his perspectives within. I’d recommend you check that out.
"I believe Progressive values come from the Bible, not in spite of it."
Then you have utterly failed to support that absurd claim. The affirmation of sexual immorality and elective infanticide are certainly NOT Biblical, they are outright contrary to it.
You may be correct, but I would offer that all humans bring their own lens to interpreting scripture and theology. For instance, George Barna's data on eisegesis is itself eisegesis; it assumes what is truly "biblical." I may be wrong, but I think being upfront about the lenses and biases we bring to scripture while also holding to a high view of scripture is better than simply assuming we come to the Bible with a pure and unbiased mind.
I understand what you are saying about Richard Hays. I’ve leaned on authors like Matthew Vines and Dale B. Martin who I think take the Bible very seriously and examine from scripture why they don’t think anti-LGBT is a faithful biblical position.
In general, I tend to agree with you. The Gospel can be “Left-resonant”, but there are also ways in which the Gospel is a conservative message. Schnekloth’s problem is that he refuses to acknowledge that latter fact.
A successful congregation, and church body, will be both welcoming to people who have a progressive viewpoint at the same time as welcoming to conservatives who push back against change for its own sake. It will challenge conservatives to find when the Gospel calls us to be more progressive, but will also challenge progressives to recognize when they are losing the Gospel in their desire to be prophetic — i.e., not every so-called prophetic voice carries a Gospel-centered message. Sometimes the local community needs the comfort that comes with tradition and stability.
Once we start learning to live with each other and our differences within the Christian community, we will be one step closer to living out the Gospel truth as a Christian community, recognizing the need for both prophetic voices “afflicting the comfortable” as well as the more traditional priestly voices of “comforting the afflicted.”
These are fair points. I have an interview with Schnekloth on my Future Christian podcast. We talk more about his book and his perspectives within. I’d recommend you check that out.
Will do - thanks for the heads-up! I’m glad to have come across your Substack and look forward to reading more, being challenged, and learning!
"I believe Progressive values come from the Bible, not in spite of it."
Then you have utterly failed to support that absurd claim. The affirmation of sexual immorality and elective infanticide are certainly NOT Biblical, they are outright contrary to it.
You may be correct, but I would offer that all humans bring their own lens to interpreting scripture and theology. For instance, George Barna's data on eisegesis is itself eisegesis; it assumes what is truly "biblical." I may be wrong, but I think being upfront about the lenses and biases we bring to scripture while also holding to a high view of scripture is better than simply assuming we come to the Bible with a pure and unbiased mind.
I understand what you are saying about Richard Hays. I’ve leaned on authors like Matthew Vines and Dale B. Martin who I think take the Bible very seriously and examine from scripture why they don’t think anti-LGBT is a faithful biblical position.