Mclaren sounds like another liberation theologist.Righteousness, as used in Scripture is nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles and affections of heart, and conformity of life to the divine law. The social justice doesn't fit, and Mclaren's hesitation before noting that "righteousness really means justice" is a reflection of his lie. The "here and now" is not the message of the scriptures
Sorry, Anon 8:55, but I beg to differ. If you study the original terms, you will note that Mclaren is correct. The two words arise from the same Hebrew root or stem and are connected in the texts of the Hebrew prophets and the Gospels.
"Theologist"?Larry, you really should consider requiring a name and e-mail address for people to comment. Allowing anonymity simply allows pin-headed comments like the one above.
smh00a, thanks for that word. I have imposed that rule in the past, but have decided that it cuts back participation in such a drastic way that I'd rather put up with a few "out there" comments than lose the free for all, open air that I hope to create here. Appreciate your point of view.
Fair enough, but it begs the question: Are comments to which people are ashamed to sign their names really worth adding to the dialogue? In most cases, they are people who'd rather have a monologue than a dialogue, and those participants detract from rather than contribute to healthy conversation.Many publications around the country are realizing this on their online forums and changing their policies to decrease the number of anonymous trolls (technical term) who only want to hear themselves talk ... or type. I don't think it'd be unwise for you to consider doing something similar.Just my two cents. =)Appreciate your blog, and I'll keep reading whatever you decide!
smh00a, thanks for that! I'll reconsider this. As I say, I imposed the restriction once and had complaints from legit readers. It is a balance and no easy solution.
argumentum ad hominem
Post a Comment