I am curious to hear more about dialogue and change as you mentioned.

Also, I’m beginning to notice that certain leaders are opening up about what needs to change in the ministry (maybe I’ll write about this some day). My prayer is that us lay memebers will dialogue with these leaders in the hope that they will begin to honestly address some of these issues in their messages or what have you (I’ve actually seen glimpses of this here and there). It would be great to have a leadership development workshop based on speaking the truth in love from scripture so as to address real issues in the ministry.

I think that this is one reason why messages are often criticized as being bland and boring. Sermons have become Bible studies that have become lectures and commentaries rather than speaking to people.

Physical fruit-bearing is obviously necessary for the existence of mankind. But if the fruit of the Spirit is not ultimately manifested in that physical fruit, then I think that these efforts are for naught.

You pointed out one statement that also sparked PTSD reactions in me from Wright’s words:

“God’s purpose is seen in fruitfulness, rather than the fruitlessness…”

Can we really bind marriage to fruitfulness? What about a man and a woman who cannot reproduce? And more generally, why do we tie Christian worth to bearing fruit? Doesn’t that fly in the face of Jesus words, such as the “consider the ravens”?

“Finally, God’s purpose is seen in fruitfulness, rather than the fruitlessness of same-sex unions. Wright’s allusion to the fact that the blessing upon humanity is one that focuses upon the fruitfulness granted to the union of the male and female binary underlines his point even further.”

Some same-sex couples are known to adopt children who would otherwise become wards of the state or neglected, in some manner. They are committed to providing for them materially and emotionally just as any heterosexual couple would. I’m not saying that this is compelling evidence to legitimize or redefine marriage to include same-sex partnerships, but I think that it says something about the potential “fruit” of such unions.

If loving, same sex couples are willing to take in and raise unwanted children who have the potential to become productive members of society, then what does that say about such unions? Or is this simply God’s providence or prevenient grace at work? Just thinking out loud.

And yes, for all our readers who don’t know, I have a celebration, full-inclusion view toward both women and all LGBTQ people. My other blog, justbeingthere.org, is where I share my thoughts as a gay rights pacifist.

And yes, after making that blog, some gay men at UBF have reached out to me. Try going through ubf marriage-by-faith when you are gay…

I think Wright has a far more robust thought fabric than simple “opposing samesex marriage”. He reminds me of our friend John H. A.. We disagree when it comes to ssm, but John has not yet condemned me to hell :)

Here are some of of Wrights’ thoughts that allow me to trust him as a teacher even though I disagree with him on ssm:

“NTW: Monogamous, lifelong same-sex relationships were known in the ancient world as well as in the modern—there is plenty of evidence, despite what people sometimes say. When Jesus reaffirms the traditional Jewish standards of sexual behavior (he was talking in a Jews-only context where people would know what his shorthand sayings meant), and when Paul, speaking in a largely Gentile context, spells out a bit more clearly what is and what isn’t part of the new-creation lifestyle for those “in Christ,” this way of life was always counter-intuitive in that world, as it is again today.

But it’s important that we do not reduce the Bible to a collection of true doctrines and right ethics. There are plenty of true doctrines and right ethics there, of course, but they come within the larger thing, which is the story of how the Creator is rescuing and restoring the whole creation, with his rescue and restoration of humans at the heart of it. In other words, it isn’t about “do we allow this or that?” To ask the question that way is already to admit defeat, to think in terms of behavior as a set of quasi-arbitrary, and hence negotiable, rules.”

– See more at: http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/06/03/nt-wright-homosexuality-science-gender/#sthash.MFKHj2Vh.dpuf

Thanks for the further reading!

A few comments:

You said, “What if someone in your study group answers with a recent time, saying they need comfort now? Ramming through the study guide would be pointless if there were some immediate need among the people studying.”

But Brian, if we don’t follow the study guide then we’ll stray from the Bible text. Don’t you realize that faithful bible study is the answer to all of our problems? Sorry, I couldn’t resist. That’s actually a great point that you’ve brought up. Any discussion centered on the Bible should be a highly organic and interpersonal process. And in terms of sermons, I’ve heard many where the speaker avoids unpacking the text and applying it to an issue pertinent to the audience for the sake of getting through their entire exegesis on the passage; they think that they are being faithful to the Bible text in doing this. But exegesis is simply a tool that allows a preacher/teacher to pull out possible applications as the Holy Spirit illumines his mind. A good bible teacher will 1) contextualize the passage ahead of time to his audience and 2) think on his feet so that he can contextualize the passage to the participants when they articulate new needs or concerns. God speaks to us through the Bible text when we very honestly come to him with our assorted thoughts, issues and needs.

Also, if you’re looking to delve more into Wright and his theology, this podcast has some good discussions on it:

http://mereorthodoxy.com/mere-fidelity-surprised-nt-wright/

http://mereorthodoxy.com/nt-wright-reformed-critics/

His view of justification is closer to the Reformed view than some modern reformers think.

Yes that is a MAJOR earth-shattering theme of 2 Corinthians from what I can tell! Suffering is NOT divine punishment. Those who live with the old testament obey=blessed/disobey=cursed mentality have nothing to do with Christ or His gospel.

I’ve dropped this line of thinking: “What gives you the most comfort?” I no longer appreciate that kind of question in bible study. My answer to what gives me the most comfort is rum and sex.

I really appreciate however, the way N.T. Wright approaches “comfort”, by opening his study with this: “Describe a time when you needed comfort.”

The first question is a constricting, binding type question that conforms the student(s) to something the teacher wants to say. I call this a loaded question. The study members have little choice but to withdraw into themselves as the fog of guilt sets in.

The second question (formed as a statement) is an opening, liberating type question that allows the student(s) to discover something the teacher wants to say. I call this a disarming question. The study members are guided to be disarmed and transparent with each other as the peace settles in.

I am no expert in the Christian authors, but from what little I have learned about them, everyone from Cs Lewis to Tim Keller to St. Augustine do not use loaded questions but attempt to liberate and discover in a way that N.T. Wright does brilliantly.