tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post511109534459064947..comments2023-05-22T06:30:18.777-06:00Comments on Emerging Grace: Open Discussion : Convergent PodcastLindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16458658959357581120noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-75219041128074502512008-03-04T15:51:00.000-07:002008-03-04T15:51:00.000-07:00As others have mentioned already, public comments ...As others have mentioned already, public comments get public responses. Mark is not out of line to take these points of view to task, particularly with the heavy influence these men are having on the church. What would be great would be to have a public debate and Rob, Doug and Brian could all respond. Invite Matt Chandler and a few others and have at it. I'd pay a hefty admission.<BR/><BR/>I find it odd that several have declined to listen to the podcast but have something to say about it? Surely you can carve out an hour or so away from watching the forecast of super tuesday 2 and give it a listen?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-50927964511998021372007-10-11T11:09:00.000-06:002007-10-11T11:09:00.000-06:00Anonymous said... 2 Timothy 4: 3-5 For the time...<I> Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> 2 Timothy 4: 3-5 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.</I><BR/><BR/>Not to trivialize scripture, which I regard highly, but I suspect the same verses were used against Luther and others involved in the reformation...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11844424967407743575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-36871971536569401282007-10-09T06:41:00.000-06:002007-10-09T06:41:00.000-06:00Bob B - Paul was a rabbi???JenBob B - Paul was a rabbi???<BR/><BR/>JenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-30116836043323921312007-10-06T17:46:00.000-06:002007-10-06T17:46:00.000-06:002 Timothy 4: 3-5 For the time will come when men ...2 Timothy 4: 3-5 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-12193024168046412682007-10-03T22:31:00.000-06:002007-10-03T22:31:00.000-06:00Thanks everyone for all of the great comments and ...Thanks everyone for all of the great comments and discussion.<BR/><BR/>Anselm, some of the best discussion that I've seen on the topic of homosexual relationships has been at Jesus Creed. He is currently doing a series on Ex-Gays, and I'm sure that his previous posts on the topic are linked in his sidebar.Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16458658959357581120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-346464148034736812007-10-03T21:35:00.000-06:002007-10-03T21:35:00.000-06:00In response to Bob B's question about what Rob Bel...In response to Bob B's question about what Rob Bell said about the Virgin birth, I would say that anyone who criticizes Rob for what he wrote didn't actually read what he said, or didn't continue reading. I'll quote Velvet Elvis just to show, but I suggest reading the book in full. <BR/>"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being "born of a virgin" also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?"<BR/>and then he wrote on the very next page, <BR/>"I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more."<BR/>Rob's point is why should all of Christianity fall apart if one of our beloved "doctrines" is left out? I mean if we really have to get down to it, I could question Jesus' role as Messiah because Mary herself was not of the bloodline of David, Joseph was, and so Jesus was not biologically descended from King David. I have friends who would have trouble answering this one to me because I could say, "but the bible is 'literal' right? so Jesus actually wasn't fully descended from David, just married into the family, so Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecy, thus the whole Christian faith now falls apart, because Jesus wasn't from the right family." Does our faith fall apart because of that? <BR/>I've heard Donald Miller admit that he, at least at times, can't accept the 6 day creation as literal. Now while I think that he might should believe in it, I don't think of him as less of a Christian. If someone has trouble accepting that this virgin teenage Jewish girl had a baby without having had intercourse, I wouldn't think of them as less of a Christian. Some of the stuff in scripture is hard to swallow, and I don't think that if someone questions something in scripture that they aren't a Christian. I think that that is more the point Rob is trying to make. If a friend of mine doubts something from scripture, I'm not going to give him a lecture about why scripture is authoritative, and why we HAVE to believe in it or we are going to hell, because that is not going to help that person to accept Christ as the Savior and King. It will more likely push them away from Jesus. <BR/>Mark makes good on reasons why we should believe in the Virgin Birth, but what Rob is asking isn't "is the Virgin Birth really true or necessary?" but can a person be a Christian without believing in the Virgin Birth? I would say, and I believe Rob would too, yes they can be a Christian. If that is not the case, then a person isn't really a Christian until they have memorized every single church doctrine and believe in every last detail. Now this might be me, but I don't remember anybody in the New Testament handing out a bulleted list of doctrines to new believers of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>On the topic of the emergent's believing in Jesus the man, not Jesus the God-man. I think that, by what I have heard and read of Mark, that he believes in Jesus the God-man, rather than Jesus the God-Man. Jesus was just as much a Man as He was God. And Jesus was much too human to make people who believe Jesus floated around with a halo comfortable. While we must give reverence to Jesus, we must also see Him as a friend. Jesus had personality. Did the disciples have solemn reverence for Jesus all of the time, or were they friends of Jesus as well as followers. The reverence was there, but you don't follow a guy around for 3 years without having a few laughs. Emergent's have remembered Jesus the God-Man, which seems like irreverence to Jesus the God-man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-9702997486857970892007-10-03T21:12:00.000-06:002007-10-03T21:12:00.000-06:00So Brian McLaren likes to read Marcus Borg and Joh...So Brian McLaren likes to read Marcus Borg and John Crossan; so do I, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they have to say. I enjoy reading McLaren, Borg, and Crossan and learn a lot from them.David Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359262950336900169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-32533195187447856272007-10-03T18:38:00.000-06:002007-10-03T18:38:00.000-06:00Concerning the recent comments, I'm a married hete...Concerning the recent comments, I'm a married heterosexual, but I do not believe it is sinful to live in a committed monogamous homosexual relationship.<BR/><BR/>I suspect I'm a minority here, but I suppose I'm just curious. What are the thoughts of the others who have commented here on this matter?anselm13https://www.blogger.com/profile/03924165722344359533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-43370784309520910092007-10-03T16:48:00.000-06:002007-10-03T16:48:00.000-06:00Anonymous,Thanks for the link to the McLaren sermo...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link to the <A HREF="http://sherwoodopendoor.org/specialmessages.html" REL="nofollow">McLaren sermons</A>; I'm checking them out.<BR/><BR/>It's also worth noting that Tony and Peggy Campolo have spoken there, too. The Campolos famously disagree over the issue of same-sex unions - Tony does not believe that they are ever acceptable within committed Christian lives; Peggy does. They're a great example of disagreeing without losing relationship, which is what I hear when I read McLaren's words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-87418037678804551602007-10-02T14:46:00.000-06:002007-10-02T14:46:00.000-06:00Thanks for the summary of the Conference: it saved...Thanks for the summary of the Conference: it saved me listening to the podcast for two hours. Every blessing.Andrew Kennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714318748847734699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-63558949322272944732007-09-28T21:37:00.000-06:002007-09-28T21:37:00.000-06:00Can I just say that chapter 10 in McClaren's new b...Can I just say that chapter 10 in McClaren's new book "Everything Must Change" is fantastic and lays out the difference between orthodox / emergent in a great way.Thoughts From Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658741692973255432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-81613353787256147072007-09-28T19:29:00.000-06:002007-09-28T19:29:00.000-06:00Can't bring myself to listen to it.Can't bring myself to listen to it.Mike Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02288110742554139886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-82976770078074354292007-09-26T02:21:00.000-06:002007-09-26T02:21:00.000-06:00Umm... minor point, but Steve Chalke is really not...Umm... minor point, but Steve Chalke is <I>really</I> not part of the emerging church movement. <BR/><BR/>(I should know, I work for him!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-52082556132699795582007-09-25T15:15:00.000-06:002007-09-25T15:15:00.000-06:00[Grace, hi. I'm new to commenting, but I've dropp...[Grace, hi. I'm new to commenting, but I've dropped in on your blog for a while.]<BR/><BR/>Thank you for raising this: it's very timely for me. I've been trying to catch up with reading on emerging church (Bell, McLaren, Chalke, [Carson], Miller ...] and this last weekend just got around to engaging with Driscoll's writing: I nearly fell out of my armchair when I encountered a majorly-reformed, 'literal' inspiration adherent ...<BR/><BR/>But enough of me. <BR/><BR/>I agree with a lot of what Bob B wrote above: I don't think you can naively apply Jesus' teaching about reconciliation of differences within the community to a "community" of publishing, blogging, and podcasting. Moreover, if one were only "allowed" to do theology by taking each argument/refutation back to its original proposer, the whole thing would get stuck in the sand rather quickly. [To turn it around: if you want to play that game, you should be contacting Driscoll directly, not commenting here.]<BR/><BR/>That's not to say that the principle behind Jesus' teaching is not relevant, and as others have said, we cannot know the extent to which Driscoll has taken up these issues with the individuals concerned.<BR/><BR/>My biggest problem with the talk is the frequent use of straw-man arguments. I heppened to have a copy of "Velvet Elvis" right beside me when I was listening to the section about Rob Bell. I turned up the "father named Larry" paragraph while Driscoll was talking about it. Sure enough, he inserted a punch-line where Rob Bell didn't. Bell asked the question "would it matter?"; Driscoll put words in his mouth, and then denounced them. <BR/><BR/>One poster above suggested that Bell had been careless in his writing. I don't know for sure, but he strikes me as someone who uses words very carefully; who really understands the medium as the message: I think he chose every word carefully, particularly in "that" passage.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can see, quite a few of the things he complains against are places where he has "joined the dots" in a way that the original author has declined to do.<BR/><BR/>Now, you might think it irresponsible of the original authors to leave such things open and unresolved - but a great deal of life is open and unresolved. They are humbly reflecting that, and we have to live with it.<BR/><BR/>I'd love to live with the certainty Driscoll exhibits. I did once (not that I've ever been quite that reformed). But the complexities of life - and the breadth of God's grace - never seem to fit quite into such a well-defined box.<BR/><BR/>I think I'll have to listen to the podcast again sometime, nevertheless.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17253998638415528387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-87374712887939368112007-09-25T14:21:00.000-06:002007-09-25T14:21:00.000-06:00Listened to the podcast really late last night, or...Listened to the podcast really late last night, or early this morning, depending on your view. Ummm… Isn’t that part of the overall conversation, personal views? Not having read the written or spoken words of all involved – I just know reputations and blurbs of quotes I’ve seen along the way - I found the whole message at once interesting, deeply disturbing, amusing, and very informative for one just getting into the conversation. Here's a few thoughts.<BR/><BR/>Since the writings and interviews of McClaren, Bell, and Pagitt are public, it is appropriate for Driscoll to respond publically. A personal conversation with them first might have been nice, but as someone pointed out, we don't know whether or not that in fact took place. In most cases I would agree that there is a need to follow Jesus' procedures in Matthew for resolution of differences between individuals or groups. I'm not sure this applies to the writing of an author or their very public statements however. IF Driscoll believes that the individuals cited are wrong in their thinking, then he should call them on it. Now this might be old school thinking, but we need to hold each other accountable and correct each other. Not in a condeming way, but with love. I think Driscoll intended to speak with love, but at times he didn’t come off that way. His comment about McClaren’s SHIFT was cute, but not in love. <BR/><BR/>I like Dricsoll's statement that homosexuality is no worse than any other sexual sin. I applaud Pagitt for giving a straight forward answer to the question, even though I think he has no Scriptural basis for his view. McClaren needs to take a stand, either yea, nea, or I don't know. Not, "I don't want to hurt anyone." Loving someone and not wanting to hurt is commendable, but his failure to take a stance is possibly even more hurtful. <BR/><BR/>So what is wrong with rabbinical sources? I missed Driscoll's point totally. Paul was a rabbi and some of his writings can best be understood in light of that background. How did the rabbis understand their Scriptures? That is a very valid question and goes a long way to understanding Paul, not to mention the Old Testament.<BR/><BR/>Did I get this right? Driscoll sees three groups? Heresy espousing emergents, spiritually abused protestants (Calvinists) in rebellion, and those who are truly trying to reform the Church. I hope I fit into the last grouping, although there is a lot of the spiritually abused in me that empowers the reformer. That abuse came from a Methodist church by the way, so Driscoll’s Calvinists are not the only abusive ones. As for the "New Reformed," I've read some of those he mentions and would not at all recognize them as new reformers. I thought most were evangelical, fundamentalists of the modern school. <BR/><BR/>The last 5 or 10 minutes of the message were the best. Loving Jesus as man and God, being incarnational, maintaining Scriptural theology, and reforming our praxis to be culturally relevant seem like a better conversation. That I could relate to and would have liked to hear more of. <BR/><BR/>One final thought. Regarding the virgin birth of Christ. It seems to me, based on what Driscoll said, that Bell is simply asking a good question. Driscoll makes great points about the virgin birth and the resurection of Christ, and they provide a good solid modern answer to the question “is the virgin birth necessary.” Those of you who have read it, help me here. What's wrong with asking the question? I would think that how Bell answered this question is more important and that was not made clear to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-88631564490699901602007-09-25T14:16:00.000-06:002007-09-25T14:16:00.000-06:00My first concern is with the context in which he c...My first concern is with the context in which he chose to stage this message. What was/is his motive in pursuing this in the public arena? What is the desired or intended result?<BR/><BR/>Grace, unfortunately, I think that it was a push from the seminary.Thoughts From Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658741692973255432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-13965154160128712332007-09-25T13:13:00.000-06:002007-09-25T13:13:00.000-06:00I haven't listened to the podcast, and probably wo...I haven't listened to the podcast, and probably won't. My response is <A HREF="http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/?p=1419" REL="nofollow" TITLE="The Rattling of Swords Grows Loud in My Ears">3,464 words</A> and I think I've given it enough. I'm particularly down on the improper use of the word "heretic" and the emerging notion of the emergents vs. the reformed. Sigh. "How long, O Lord?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-22451989838742008352007-09-25T12:18:00.000-06:002007-09-25T12:18:00.000-06:00Interesting comments everyone.Special thanks to Jo...Interesting comments everyone.<BR/><BR/>Special thanks to Jonathan for supplying additional specific content from the podcast.<BR/><BR/>I really have enjoyed reading everyone's commentary and links. It has provoked some serious thinking about many issues for me.<BR/><BR/>Patrick, your comment about Mark as the inquisitor reminded me of Brother Maynard's latest post. You might enjoy it if you haven't seen it yet.<BR/><BR/>While Mark was somewhat humble and specific in his critique, I would not say that this was an example of how disagreement or critique should be handled.<BR/><BR/>My first concern is with the context in which he chose to stage this message. What was/is his motive in pursuing this in the public arena? What is the desired or intended result?<BR/><BR/>I am also concerned with the presumption and arrogance required to step into that role and especially to add weight to his message with the claim that it was God's spirit-inspired word for this event.<BR/><BR/>In remembering the podcast, I have great concern about the underlying messages being given. For example, the result of spending the time that he did spelling out the "heresies" of the authors he mentioned only serves to imply that McClaren, Pagitt, and Bell are guilty of things that they themselves have not said. <BR/><BR/>Also, so much of his language was intended to sensationalize and provoke fear. It reminded me of when people throw around phrases like "jezebel spirit". There are quite a few incendiary terms included along with the frequent implication that association with these men or their ideas is a slippery slope. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I have a problem with someone assassinating another person's reputation to this degree under a pretense of love and humility. I hate the "I really love these guys, BUT..." method of stabbing someone in the back. <BR/><BR/>Finally, I do not believe that any of these men would see themselves or their beliefs in Mark's description of them. In my opinion that is the biggest failure in Mark attempting this kind of a public critique. <BR/><BR/>While I don't have a problem with stating disagreement, I believe that we must seek first to understand the other position to the point where we can articulate it in a way that the other person could agree with what we are saying about them.<BR/><BR/>I don't see that Mark is interested in understanding these guys or in presenting their differences in a way that respects their ministries. It seems that his intent is to create distance so that he isn't assumed to be guilty of the same heresies that he believes are true of them.<BR/><BR/>Maybe we need some sort of orthodox badge or code phrase so people could label us in/out more easily. Maybe something simple that even us common folks could understand, like John 3:16.<BR/><BR/>Do Brian, Doug, and Rob believe John 3:16? If so, 'nuff said! Let's quit calling them heretics and accept the idea that we will not all agree completely on other doctrinal issues.Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16458658959357581120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-50144754826752108242007-09-25T10:47:00.000-06:002007-09-25T10:47:00.000-06:00Yup, he may be doing what Jesus would be doing.The...Yup, he may be doing what Jesus would be doing.<BR/><BR/>The church today is just like the Pharisees of His day.<BR/><BR/>We (all across the board) crucify those who are trying to do the Work of God.Thoughts From Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658741692973255432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-36938458907569144482007-09-25T10:31:00.000-06:002007-09-25T10:31:00.000-06:00Regarding Brian McLaren, it's worth pointing out t...Regarding Brian McLaren, it's worth pointing out that he has <A HREF="http://sherwoodopendoor.org/specialmessages.html" REL="nofollow">spoken more than once</A> at Open Door Community Church, a <A HREF="http://sherwoodopendoor.org/index2.html" REL="nofollow">gay-affirming church in Arkansas</A>. This gives you an idea of what his views really are. He sanitized it for the CT article, big time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-7501967965378103422007-09-25T09:20:00.000-06:002007-09-25T09:20:00.000-06:00ScottB - that's why I said some. I don't think an...ScottB - that's why I said some. I don't think any of them have the corner on truth, but they are all not utterly wrong either. I've managed to learn about my faith from all of them. As I have learned from Driscoll if only to help understand what I really don't buy into.<BR/><BR/>Rich - you asked <I>"If we live by this statement does it mean we are all orthodox no matter what we believe? I don't understand how we can have a truth, if we aren't ready to say that someone else has something wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>At some point we all make the choice to affirm a particular set of beliefs. We align ourselves with others, but in a way it is all about choosing our own personal orthodoxy. Once we align we can and do make statements about who is right and wrong. <BR/><BR/>The issue is that there are so many camps to be a part of (even for Catholics). So why are we here assuming that Driscoll's camp trumps all others in the role of heresy police? Even when I was a very conservative evangelical, I wasn't in Driscoll's camp. I'm not a reformed Calvinist and never was, so the radical reformed mafia would have labeled me a heretic even before I had ever heard of the emerging church. And these days it is generally the reformed camp making the strongest cries of heresy and the need to communally affirm a set of doctrines. My mom read those articles and sends them to me saying "see!!" I respond to her by reminding her that her doctrine is very very different that the guys who wrote that article. Whose set of doctrines is she wanting to affirm? And that is the question I am asking here.Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03206979106299888527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-18816836359605873492007-09-25T07:52:00.000-06:002007-09-25T07:52:00.000-06:00I haven't had the time to listen to the audio yet....I haven't had the time to listen to the audio yet. Not sure if I'll be able to, or even if I want to spend that time.<BR/><BR/>But this quote has surfaced a couple of times: <EM>The emerging crowd loves Jesus the man. Not Jesus the God man.</EM><BR/><BR/>This is such an odd statement. Because if I wanted to make an equally sweeping statement based on my own experience, I would say this:<BR/><BR/>The reformed crowd loves Jesus as God. Not Jesus the God man.<BR/><BR/>I have been in conversations where I have been cautioned against referring to Jesus as "friend" because he deserves to be treated as Lord and Master and King.<BR/><BR/>Think about that! Jesus himself called us friends, yet we're not allowed to view him as such? He is our friend, he is our brother...<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think that the New Testament does a whole lot more talking about Jesus the man than any other aspect of who Jesus is.<BR/><BR/>Paul even stated (ironically at the original "Mars Hill"!) that God worked out his plan of redemption through "the man Jesus".<BR/><BR/>I guess Paul was a bit too "emerging"... (Just like Peter was a bit too "Mormon" for saying that we partake of the divine nature)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-49447389774263002732007-09-25T06:29:00.000-06:002007-09-25T06:29:00.000-06:00Rich says:Whose theology gets to be assumed to be ...Rich says:<BR/><BR/><I>Whose theology gets to be assumed to be orthodox?"<BR/><BR/>Isn't this the problem with Emergent and Postmodern thinking as it applies to Biblical truth? If we live by this statement does it mean we are all orthodox no matter what we believe? I don't understand how we can have a truth, if we aren't ready to say that someone else has something wrong. <BR/><BR/></I><BR/><BR/>It's the problem (sorry folks) with <I>Protestant</I> thinking. This conversation will never end because in a religious tradition in which everyone is their own authority (no matter what you say about Scripture, because if interpreting Scripture were that clear, I guess there wouldn't be thousands of PRotestant denominations)...it can't. It just goes on and on and on and on.<BR/><BR/>And the question asked, basically, who made Mark Driscoll the judge of orthodoxy - is an important one, and worth contemplating beyond even the specifics of Mark Driscoll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-61960153787475516122007-09-25T03:30:00.000-06:002007-09-25T03:30:00.000-06:00I think we use the word Heresy too much...(my post...I think we use the word Heresy too much...<BR/><BR/>(my post on this <A HREF="http://andymoore.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/heresy/" REL="nofollow">here</A> if you're interested)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14373188.post-54469279282986317752007-09-24T23:01:00.000-06:002007-09-24T23:01:00.000-06:00Julie wrote: "I agree with some of what Mclaren, P...Julie wrote: "I agree with some of what Mclaren, Pagitt, Bell (and Crossen, Wright, Borg...)"<BR/><BR/>I actually found this amusing - I can't think of anyone who has disagreed with Borg and Crossan as strenuously as Wright. He's close friends with Borg, but he takes him to task (and Crossan as well) quite rigorously in numerous occasions in his writings.ScottBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351891814953244831noreply@blogger.com