I believe you are being quite balanced in your review, despite both the theological and scientific prowess absent in the “response book” . Obviously, the Oords spent a great deal more time developing the structure, and organizing the essays (and their content) than BS did. I believe one of the greatest strengths we have maintained, for the most part, in the COTN, is the ability to discuss, disagree, and walk away still honoring the imago dei in those with whom we disagree. May the conversation continue without mudslinging and slander.
I have not read either book. Shame on me. However, as a retired family physician, I can tell you that almost all of the “evangelical” arguments against LGBTQIA+ individuals are hateful, unchristian nonsense. Just about every doctor knows more LGBTQIA+ people than anyone in his/her church. We see them in our practices, and I don’t know any physicians who treat them unkindly or differently than other patients. They are people who bear the image of God, and are to be loved. And to be fair, the ones I have known are easy to love. They are far kinder than the evangelical fundamentalists I’ve known. So if someone acts more like Jesus than those who say they follow Jesus, why am I supposed to condemn them?
Read both books. Weren’t impressed with either. Hicks’ exegetical arguments aren’t that convincing to me. They seem to ignore both tradition and historical context, vis-vis the disparate purposes of the account and the prophetic writing. It also relies on a false dichotomy. As for the science, both books are lacking the honest truth that the science is confusing and unproven on either side. It’s just not there. As for comparing the two works, the Affirming book obviously took more time with the subject. The response was hastily done. But the theological warrants of the Affirming book seem flawed. The “it doesn’t matter what they do with their bodies because they are nice people” is classic Gnosticism, and the “new wind blowing” is classic Montanism. The historical insights are also flawed, at least if you’ve read Plato they seem so. The data simply does not match secular histories.
I believe you are being quite balanced in your review, despite both the theological and scientific prowess absent in the “response book” . Obviously, the Oords spent a great deal more time developing the structure, and organizing the essays (and their content) than BS did. I believe one of the greatest strengths we have maintained, for the most part, in the COTN, is the ability to discuss, disagree, and walk away still honoring the imago dei in those with whom we disagree. May the conversation continue without mudslinging and slander.
"BS"...I see what you did there
I meant to write [redacted], but I erred. Sort of. 😉
I thought you might like that. 😊
I have not read either book. Shame on me. However, as a retired family physician, I can tell you that almost all of the “evangelical” arguments against LGBTQIA+ individuals are hateful, unchristian nonsense. Just about every doctor knows more LGBTQIA+ people than anyone in his/her church. We see them in our practices, and I don’t know any physicians who treat them unkindly or differently than other patients. They are people who bear the image of God, and are to be loved. And to be fair, the ones I have known are easy to love. They are far kinder than the evangelical fundamentalists I’ve known. So if someone acts more like Jesus than those who say they follow Jesus, why am I supposed to condemn them?
Read both books. Weren’t impressed with either. Hicks’ exegetical arguments aren’t that convincing to me. They seem to ignore both tradition and historical context, vis-vis the disparate purposes of the account and the prophetic writing. It also relies on a false dichotomy. As for the science, both books are lacking the honest truth that the science is confusing and unproven on either side. It’s just not there. As for comparing the two works, the Affirming book obviously took more time with the subject. The response was hastily done. But the theological warrants of the Affirming book seem flawed. The “it doesn’t matter what they do with their bodies because they are nice people” is classic Gnosticism, and the “new wind blowing” is classic Montanism. The historical insights are also flawed, at least if you’ve read Plato they seem so. The data simply does not match secular histories.