Promising to analyze key Bible passages but never doing so makes Gushee’s argument appear to be biblical even though it is not, Guthrie wrote. He probes neither the story nor its parts, so it’s difficult to see how this constitutes a ‘careful consideration’ of what he himself describes as central to the debate.”
He says that argument “deserves careful consideration” in light of Bible passages such as Genesis 1-2 and Matthew 5:31-32.īut Guthrie argued that Gushee “does little to engage the key passages and fails to walk us through the ‘careful consideration’ he’s promised. Gushee describes the “creation order” argument – that God created marriage only as a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman – as “the single most important biblical-theological ethical issue faced by any Christian wrestling with” the issue of homosexuality. In many ways, the stories form the foundation of his paradigm shift – with scripture and reason being reconsidered in light of those stories.” “It’s important to attend not only to what he argues but how he does so.
“David shapes his argument by weaving a consideration of biblical texts, moral reasoning, and, above all, the evoking of personal stories,” Guthrie wrote. Gushee’s departure from scriptural teaching seems to be a product of his personal experience rather than proper exegesis of Bible passages, Guthrie wrote. “During our years of service together, many of us knew him as an articulate, compassionate, thoughtful colleague and an outstanding teacher, one who held the historic Christian view on the topics of sexuality and marriage,” Guthrie wrote. For Guthrie, a friend and former colleague of Gushee’s, critiquing Gushee’s arguments was a personal and difficult experience.
0 kommentar(er)
