John Pavlovitz – To The Men on the Other Side of #MeToo

John Pavlovitz

This is a strong word that needs to be heard by all of us, men, in the context of the #MeToo campaing. Listen:

As I watched my social media feeds fill up over the past two days, with hundreds of #MeToo hashtags from women sharing their firsthand experience of sexual harassment or assault, I began to grieve.

I grieved for the sheer volume of the revelations, realizing they will still only barely scratch the surface; how many more women are too traumatized, too protective of their privacy, or simply not yet ready to make such personal declarations to an invisible assembly of relative strangers—many of them, the very kinds of men responsible for these wounds. I know how many more women are carrying these terrible stories around and do not want to tell them.

And that’s the thing: they shouldn’t have to.

No survivor of violence should be compelled to unearth their hidden scars in order to reach those responsible for them. Men, the onus should not be on women who have been harassed or assaulted, to expose themselves to further injury just to show us the scale and the depth of our own sickness. This is our responsibility. We should be the ones doing the soul excavation and the mirror-gazing, and we should be the ones now openly confessing our #MeToo’s, in these moments when the world is watching.

We should be the ones making ourselves vulnerable; the ones sharing with our circles of friends, loved ones, business associates, church friends, and social media acquaintances; how complicit we are in this vile epidemic. 

This isn’t the time for each of us to broadcast our self-created good guy resumes, to defend our personal virtue, or to imagine why these are all some other guy’s stories—because that’s largely the point here: these are probably our stories.

The wounds of the #MeToo’s are likely ones we have been responsible for inflicting, if not in personal acts of aggression:

In the times we stood silently in the company of a group of catcalling men; too cowardly to speak in a woman’s defense.
In the way we’ve voraciously consumed pornography without a second thought of the deep humanity and the beautiful stories beneath the body parts.
In the times we pressured a woman to give more of herself than she felt comfortable giving, and how we justified ourselves after we had.
In the times we laughed along with a group of men speaking words that denied the intrinsic value of women.
In the times we used the Bible to justify our misogyny.
In the times we defended predatory bragging as simply “locker room talk.”

In the times we imagined our emotional proximity to a woman entitled us to physical liberties.

Guys, while we may not believe we have committed direct acts of violence against women (however given the statistics, this is quite likely), we have each participated in a culture of misogyny and sexism that continues to victimize and traumatize, to steal safety and generate fear, to deny humanity and to cultivate disrespect. We are fully complicit in these #MeToo stories, whether we have intentionally acted, contributed unknowingly, nurtured with our silence, multiplied with our laughter, our cosigned with our credit cards.

And in these days, we should not be expecting women to further make themselves vulnerable just to wake our consciences up and to call us to places of decency and accountability that we should already be aspiring to.

We should be the ones stepping from the shadows right now.
We should be the one laying our souls bare.
We should be risking the judgment of strangers.
We should be the ones demanding renovation.

We are the other side of the #MeToo stories.
We are the writers of these awful stories.
It’s time we owned this sickness.
It’s time we stopped it. 

(Source, HERE)





26 octombrie, Universitatea Iasi – Reforma Protestanta intre Apus si Rasarit – Simpozion International Interdisciplinar

Read More »

Scot McKnight – Bury The Word “Evangelical”

Scot McKnight, at the centre of the picture

[This ia stern warning from a leading evangelical. We better listen. And, I openly admit, I fully agree with Scot.]

It’s time to bury the word “evangelical.” It’s both past time to bury it but it’s also time yet again to bury it.

I have a strategy for doing so, but first this:

Kate Shellnutt, at CT, writes,

More than 80 years ago, the first president of Princeton Evangelical Fellowship aspired for the organization to allow students “to enjoy Christian fellowship one with another, to bear united witness to the faith of its members in the whole Bible as the inspired Word of God, and to encourage other students to take, with them, a definite stand for Christ on the campus.”

In 2017, the Ivy League student ministry remains fully committed to this purpose … just without calling themselves evangelical.

The long-running organization changed its name this year to become Princeton Christian Fellowship, citing baggage surrounding the evangelical label.

“There’s a growing recognition that the term evangelical is increasingly either confusing, or unknown, or misunderstood to students,” the organization’s director, Bill Boyce, told The Daily Princetonian.

It’s not an issue limited to the 8,000-student campus; a number of evangelicals across the country share his concerns, particularly after last year’s election linked evangelical identity with support for President Donald Trump in the public eye.

Which leads me beyond the obvious: one of the more openly affirming institutions of evangelicalism, CT, records the news that evangelical is an embattled term while CT presses forward with no desire to diminish the centrality of the term for itself. But this essay is not about CT.

It’s about that dreaded term “evangelical.”

It’s a case of only a few who like the term while many despise the term, all the while knowing there’s no other term to use.

The issue is politics; the presenting painful reality is Trump. The reality is 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump. The word “evangelical” now means Trump-voter. The word “evangelical” is spoiled.

Which means the problem is not nearly so large among self-confessed evangelicals. They admit to being evangelicals and voting for Trump and evidently see no dissonance. We don’t know how many of that 81% held their nose when they voted for Trump but this is certain: they weren’t voting for Hillary Clinton. Their evangelical convictions and their political convictions were inter-looped into voting for Trump and not Hillary (or a Democrat).Read More »

Dewi Hughes – A Tribute to a Great Man of God

Dewi Arwel Hughes

I just found out that my dear friend Dewi Arwel Hughes went to bee with the Lord. May he rest in peace with the saints!

I met Dewi for the first time in February 2007, at Limuru, in Kenya, in the context of the Lausanne Movement, as we were both called to serve in the Lausanne Theology Working Group, under the leadership of Dr. Christ Wright.

Ruth Padilla, Dewi Hughes, Chris Wright, John Baxter-Brown,
Members of the Lausanne Theology Working Group

Dewi presented there a paper on ecclesiology and ethnicity, which, as I was going to find out, was one of his lifelong passions. My friend was not a nationalist. Far from it. Nevertheless, he was fully dedicated to the preservation and flourishing of the Welsh language. In 2010, when we met for the last time on this side of eternity, he had with him a young Welsh woman that he was mentoring in this area. I remember how impressed I was by the quality of her presentation during the congress, and how proud was Dewi of her. His interest in the theological implications resulted also in his book Castrating Culture: A Christian Perspective on Ethnic Identity from the Margins, published by Paternoster, in 2001.Read More »

Europe’s Secessionist Movements

In the light of the referendum in Catalunia, this map speaks volumes about the present fragmentation of Europe. In my opinion, the only way out of this madness is in a united Europe of regions.

Read more on this map HERE.

What’s Missing from the Pope and Patriarch’s Statement on Climate Change – Public Orthodoxy

Source: What’s Missing from the Pope and Patriarch’s Statement on Climate Change – Public Orthodoxy

O blatantly neoliberal view of ecology – with the worship of the so-called ‘free market’ and wild capitalism included; a genuine ‘gospel according to capitalism’.
And, of course, very critical of the biblical and theological critique made by Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch to the incessant and unmoderated search for profit with the excuse of looking for the illusionaary greatest good for most people, in spite of the worrying growing disparity between the richesst and the poorest of this world.

Euharistia în protestantism

Pentru mine, intelegerea sacramentala a euharistiei a fost ultima picatura in paharul meu teologico-eclesial, care a determinat trecerea la anglicanism.
Problema euharistiei este complexa si e greu de epuizat, fie si superficial, intr-un articol de blog. Si cu atit mai putin intr-un scurt comentariu. Totusi, iata citeva consideratii:
1. Anabaptistii sunt orbiti de anticlericalismul lor si transforma sacramentul instituit de Cristos intr-un banal act mnemonic, lipsit de putere de transforare a vietii (adica contesta calitatea lui de a fi un ‘mijloc al harului’). Atunci cind la aceasta se adauga, ca in cazul evanghelicilor – copiii modernitatii, o intelegere literalista a textului biblic, aceasta omoara definitiv simbolica sacramentala (de la cuvintul grec ‘sym-bolon’ – care inseamna ‘ceea ce aduce laolalta doua realitati’, spre deosebire de ‘semn’, care este un indicator ales arbitrar, ca un semn de circulatie, care doar arata spre altceva, cu care nu are nicio legatura organica).
2. Luther nu scapa nici el de aceasta ispita a litteralismului. De aici, cred eu, si obsesia lui cu prezenta ‘fizica’ a lui Cristos in elementele euharistice. De ce aceasta prezenta trebuie sa fie ‘fizica’? Luther, ca si catolicii si ortodocsii, nu reusesc sa faca distinctia radicala, si absolut necesara, intre: a. persoana fizica a lui Isus din Nazaret (cel care a instituit euharistia), b. elementele euharistice – trupul euharistic – carnea si singele – lui Cristos, care nu pot fi acelasi lucru cu trupul lui fizic, caci acesta tocmai instituia sacramentul, si c. trupul mistic al lui Cristos, Biserica, reprezentata la cina originara de apostoli.
3. Cu alte cuvinte, prezenta lui Cristos in euharistia NU POATE FI UNA FIZICA, dar este una reala, insa spirituala, perceputa ca atare prin credinta, NU doar una ideatica, pur mnemonica, precum la Zwingli – caci cum altfel ar putea o simpla amintire, perceputa eronat, sa ucida, asa cum spune Pavel ca se intimpla cu cei care se impartasesc ‘in chip nevrednic’ – NU care sunt nevrednici, care e cu totul altceva, caci toti suntem nevrednici, asa cum afirma explicit rugaciunea de penitenta dinaintea impartasirii in traditiile liturgice.
4. In opinia mea, numai dependenta (nenecesara, cred eu) de o paradigma aristotelica, faca necesara complicatia scolastica a supra-explicatiei numita teoria (sau, daca preferati, doctrina) transubstantierii.
5. Din acest punct de vedere, ‘prefacerea darurilor’ din ortodoxie este ‘aceeasi Marie cu alta palarie, in raport cu transubstantierea, chiar daca exista anumite deosebiri – neesentiale cred eu, intre ele – mai ales absenta sofisticarii scolastice la ortodocsi. De remarcat ca atit numarul sacramentelor (sapte), cit si conceptul ‘prefacerii’, sunt adaugiri tirzii in ortodoxie, ele fiind preluate de fapt din catolicism in perioada de dupa 1642 – Sinodul de la Iasi, numita de Florovski ‘robia babiloneana a ortodoxiei’. (Mai multe despre asta in textele mele desspre Reforma care vor aparea in aceasta perioada in mai multe publicatii.)
Pina atunci, ortodoxia se multumea sa afirme prezenta REALA, prin credinta si epicleza (invocarea Duhului Sfint de catre preot asupra darurilor euharistice), asa cum o fac, in felul lor specific, anglicanii si reformatii magisteriali.
In ce ma priveste pe mine, eu primesc prin credinta afirmatia explicita a scripturii: ‘acesta ESTE (NU DOAR simbolizeaza, NU DOAR reprezinta, NU DOAR aminteste) trupul meu; acesta ESTE singele meu’. Si de aceea cred in prezenta REALA, dar nu FIZICA a lui Cristos in elementele sacramentului euharistic.

Reflecții creștine

Subiectul Euharistiei incită și astăzi, după milenii, spiritele. În vreme ce unii consideră că este o taină, iar alții văd în împărtășanie doar un act simbolic, toată lumea este de acord într-o privință: Euharistia este o temă de discuție care are, încă, multe mistere.

Citesc în prezent cartea „Luther – omul și reformatorul”, Roland H. Bainton. Și, cum tema împărtășaniei a fost una vizată de Reformă, am fost foarte interesat să cunosc profunzimile gândirii lui Luther cu privire la acest subiect. Întâi, m-a frapat explicația pe care o dă Luther prezenței fizice a lui Cristos în pâinea și vinul consacrate. Dar despre asta voi vorbi mai jos puțin. Apoi m-am înviorat văzând poziția categorică în fața puritanilor, grupare precursoare a neoprotestantismului de astăzi ce a susținut, de la început, că „Cina” nu are decât valoare comemorativă. Puritanilor, Luther le răspunde ferm: „Radicalismul lui Karlstadt s-a dezvoltat după ce s-a retras…

View original post 1,427 more words

Richard Rohr on The Evolution of Mystic Consciousness

Let’s take a look at the history of mysticism to find our roots and see how we had it, how and why we largely lost it, and to recognize that now we are in the midst of a rediscovery and new appreciation for the mystical, nondual, or contemplative mind (use whichever word you prefer; they are all pointing in the same direction).

Before 800 BC, it seems most people experienced their union with the Divine and Reality through myth, poetry, dance, music, fertility, and nature. Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) called this Pre-axial Consciousness. Although living in an often-violent world and focusing on survival, people still knew that they belonged to something cosmic and meaningful. They inherently participated in an utterly enchanted universe where the “supernatural” was everywhere. This was the pre-existent “church that existed since Abel,” spoken of by St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, and the Second Vatican Council. Owen Barfield (1898-1997) called this state of mind “original participation.” [1] It is reflected in most of the indigenous religions to this day. As Pope John Paul II said, Native Americans have known from the beginning what it’s taking us Catholics a long time to realize: that the Great Spirit has always been available and loveable in the natural world. [2]Read More »

Richard Rohr on ‘Incarnational Mysticism’

Years ago, someone asked if I could sum up all my teachings in two words. My response was “incarnational mysticism.” The first word, “incarnational,” is Christianity’s specialty and should always be our essential theme. We believe God became incarnate. The early Fathers of the Church professed that God, by taking on human flesh, said yes to all that was physical, material, and earthly. Unfortunately, Christianity lost this full understanding.

Many Christians are scared of the word “mysticism.” But a mystic is simply one who has moved from mere belief or belonging systems to actual inner experience of God. Mysticism is more represented in John’s Gospel than in the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) which give us the basic story line of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. In fact, the primary reason many are not moved or attracted to John’s Gospel is because they were never taught the mystical mind.Read More »

Post-Truth – Public Orthodoxy

Source: Post-Truth – Public Orthodoxy

Here is an Orthodox theological view of post-truth. A tough one.

Ritualul și rolul său | irisologie

Source: Ritualul și rolul său | irisologie

Am citit cu interes acest text. In ce ma priveste, ca ‘high church Anglican’ sunt mai pozitiv fata de ritualul religios decit sunteti dvs. Observ ca traseele noastre religioase sunt opuse, si poate de aici vine diferenta: al dvs este de la ritualul religios catolic (fie el si unul nominal), la saracia simbolica cultului evangelic, in vreme ce a mea este de la aceasta din urma, la bogatia liturgica si sacramentala a crestinismului istoric. In ce ma priveste, teologia, si in special interactiunea cu teologia ortodoxa, este cea care a determinat in cea mai mare masura aceasta traiectorie.
Acestea fiind spuse, dati-mi voie sa fac citeva observatii.
1. Omul este o fiinta simbolica si nu poate trai fara simboluri, metafore, modele, si, in cele din urma, fara ritual. Omul este singura fiinta are marcheaza ritualic nasterea unui prunc, isi celebreaza nunta si isi ingroapa mortii, intre multe altele.
2. Ritualurile de trecere, nu sunt doar apanajul omului primitiv. Chiar daca rolul ritualurilor de trecere a slabit in modernitate, acestea continua sa existe, slava Domnului, ele izvorind din natura omului creat dupa chipul lui Dumnezeu. In definitiv, botezul crestin tocmai asta este – un ritual de trecere (fara singe insa, caci pe acesta l-a varsat Cristos). In aceasta privinta refuz fara ezitare conceptia penibila a lui Zwingli despre sacramente, care le transforma in simple semne – daca e asa, adica daca singura lor ratune este sa semnifice, intr-un fel sau altul – caci aceasta este natura semnului: semnificatul este important, nu semnul utilizat, moartea si invierea cuiva in Cristos, de ce nu ‘facem botezul’, de exemplu, cu candidatul intrind cu hainele de strada intr-un dulap – semnificind mormintul, si iesind din el cu haine albe, semnificind invierea sau ‘nasterea din nou’ (intre altele, un concept biblic minor, a carui importanta a fost exagerata de evanghelici). La fel, am putea lua ‘cina’ cu brinza si lapte, daca vinul si piinea sunt doar semne arbitrare. Dar nu sunt. Cum nu e nici apa. Bunul nostru simt de spune asta, chiar daca bezmeticcul Zwigli ar vrea sa credem altceva.
3. Ruptura sacru-profan, oricit de folositoare ar fi ea pentru Eliade si istoria religiilor, este inselatoare din perspectiva crestina. Scopul lui Cristos, nu este sa creeze un soi de homo religiosus, la care doar dimensiunea sacra conteaza, ci ‘ a aduce toate lucrurile in ascultare de Dumnezeu, in Cristos’ (Efes. 1:10). Cu alte cuvinte, daca moderrnitatea a incercat profanarea (si eliminarea) sacrului, Cristos a venit sa sacralizeze intreaga existenta.
4. Da, modernitatea a incercat sa desvrajeasca lumea – lipsa de ritual a evanghelicilor, care sunt copii ai modernitatii, este o alta expresie a acestui efort – dar a esuat lamentabil. Avem de-a face, asa cum bine remarca multi sociologi ai religiei (inclusiv Peter Berger insusi – Dumnezeu sa-l odihnasca, cel care promova cindva teoria secularizarii, iar apoi a realizat ca s-a inselat), lumea a intrat, in postmoderrnitate, intr-un proces de revrajire, chiar daca, asa cum subliniam intr-un pasaj din teza mea de doctorat, este vorba de o revrajire in care transcendentul nu este inca pe deplin restaurat in locul care i se cuvine.
5. Cred ca evenimentul cristic nu schimba prea mult in nevoia omului de ritual. Inainte de Cristos, ritualul arata inainte, spre venirea lui, in vreme ce dupa inviere el arata inapoi, catre ceea ce a facut posibila mintuirea noastra. Atit si nimic mai mult.
In concluzie, convingerea mea este ca fara ritual omul nu este om, ci doar o jivina, fie ea si cuvintatoare.

More Accurate World Map Wins Prestigious Design Award – All That Is Interesting

Source: More Accurate World Map Wins Prestigious Design Award – All That Is Interesting

I love maps. They tell incredible stories. Here is another one, the AuthaGraph World Map, supposedly the most accurate one that exists to date.
Looking at it, I see that Russia and the US are at the centru of the map, as if it was designed at the height on the Cold War.
Imagine how a map would look like if Africa would be at the centre. Or if Antarctica and Australia would be on the upper side of it. Wouldn’t that change a lot in terms of perception?

Dilema veche: Reforma şi Luther

Revista Dilema veche publica, incepind cu acest numar, si in urmatoarele din octombrie, un numar de articole despre implinirea a 500 de ani de la Reforma protestanta.
Ideea acestei serii de artcole a fost a lui Emanuel Contac. Tot el este cel care s-a ocupat de redactarea textelor (limitate undeva la 1500 de cuvinte). Toata aprecierea pentru aceasta idee si pentru deschiderea manifestata de domnul Matei Plesu in legatura cu realizarea ei.
Sper ca publicarea acestor texte va contribui la indepartarea, fie si partiala, a ignorantei care domina spatiul cultural romanesc, iinclusiv cel evanghelic, cu privire la Reforma.


View original post

Richard Rohr on Nonviolence – Taking Jesus Seriously

How is it that after two thousand years of meditation on Jesus Christ we’ve managed to avoid everything that he taught so unequivocally? This is true of every Christian denomination, even those who call themselves orthodox or doctrinally pure.  We are all “cafeteria Christians.” All of us have evaded some major parts of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7): the Beatitudes, Jesus’ warning about idolizing “mammon,” his clear directive and example of nonviolence, and his command to love our enemies being the most obvious. Jesus has always been too much for us. He is the only true “orthodoxy” as far as I can see.

In fact, I have gone so far as to say, if Jesus never talked about it once, the churches will tend to be preoccupied with it (abortion, birth control, and homosexuality are current examples), and if Jesus made an unequivocal statement about it (for example, the rich, the camel, and the eye of a needle), we tend to quietly shelve it and forget it. This is not even hard to prove.Read More »

John Dear on the Signs of a Prophet – 2

(HERE is the source of this text. Continued from HERE)

Seventh, a prophet confronts the status quo. With the prophet, there is no sitting back. The powerful are challenged, empires resisted, systemic justices exposed. Prophets vigorously rock the leaky ship of the state and shake our somnolent complacency. . . .

Eighth, for the prophet, the secure life is usually denied. More often than not the prophet is in trouble. Prophets call for love of our nation’s enemies. They topple the nation’s idols, upset the rich and powerful, and break the laws that would legalize mass murder. The warlike culture takes offense and dismisses the prophet, not merely as an agitator but as obsessed and unbalanced. Consequently, the prophet ends up outcast, rejected, harassed, and marginalized—and, eventually, punished, threatened, targeted, bugged, followed, jailed, and sometimes killed.

Ninth, prophets bring the incandescent word to the very heart of grudging religious institutions. There the prophet confronts the blindness and complacency of the religious leader—the bishops and priests who keep silent amid national crimes; the ministers who trace a cross over industries of death and rake blood money into churchly coffers. A bitter irony and an ancient story—and all but inevitable. The institution that goes by the name of God often turns away the prophet of God.Read More »

John Dear on the Signs of a Prophet – 1

(via Richard Rohr)

First, a prophet is someone who listens attentively to the word of God, a contemplative, a mystic who hears God and takes God at God’s word, and then goes into the world to tell the world God’s message. So a prophet speaks God’s message fearlessly, publicly, without compromise, despite the times, whether fair or foul.

Second, morning, noon, and night, the prophet is centered on God. The prophet does not do his or her own will or speak his or her own message. The prophet does God’s will and speaks God’s message. . . . In the process, the prophet tells us who God is and what God wants, and thus who we are and how we can become fully human.

Third, a prophet interprets the signs of the times. The prophet is concerned with the world, here and now, in the daily events of the whole human race, not just our little backyard or some ineffable hereafter. The prophet sees the big picture—war, starvation, poverty, corporate greed, nationalism, systemic violence, nuclear weapons, and environmental destruction. The prophet interprets these current realities through God’s eyes, not through the eyes of analysts or pundits or Pentagon press spokespeople. The prophet tells us God’s take on what’s happening.Read More »

O școală care pervertește mintea

Source: O școală care pervertește mintea

Richard Rohr on Prophets

Read More »

Deafening Silence – Public Orthodoxy

Source: Deafening Silence – Public Orthodoxy

Inga Leonova, editor of The Wheel, a quarterly journal of Orthodoxy and culture, writes on the ugly face of deadly fascist (supposedly Orthodox) ideolofy of the Iron Guard in Romania and the role it played in the violent recent events oon Charlottesville, Va.

Russell Moore: White supremacy angers Jesus, but does it anger his church? – The Washington Post

Source: Russell Moore: White supremacy angers Jesus, but does it anger his church? – The Washington Post

I would have never imagined I will one day be so enthusiastic after reading a text written by a Southern Baptist. But here it is. Yes! Well done, Russell Moore!

What I Saw in Charlottesville – Brian McLaren

Source: What I Saw in Charlottesville – Brian McLaren

Here is an eye witness report. Really worth reading.

Race, the Gospel, and the Moment

Source: Race, the Gospel, and the Moment

A good word, from a man of God.

Evangelicals, Trump and the politics of redemption | Religion News Service

Source: Evangelicals, Trump and the politics of redemption | Religion News Service

An American evangelical says ‘enough is enough’:
The evangelical Christian movement in America is being compromised and discredited by the way prominent leaders have associated themselves with, first, the Donald J. Trump campaign and now, the Trump presidency. If this is allowed to define evangelical attitudes toward political power, the public witness of Christianity will be undermined in durable ways.

Pe intelesul tuturor: initiativa si referendumul privind casatoria

Explicatii juridice clare, pentru cei cu mintea lipede, despre o initiativa legislativa inutila si cu rol pur propagandistic, dar care a dat prilej celor mai josnice atitudini homofobe si extremiste, in special in comunitatile religioase fundamentaliste – ortodoxee, catolice si protestant-evanghelice – din Romania.

CRISTI DANILEŢ - judecător

Familia și căsătoria: Constituția consacră două drepturi distincte: dreptul la viață familială (art. 26) și dreptul la căsătorie (art.48). Aceleași drepturi distincte sunt consacrate de Convenția Europeană a Drepturilor Omului care are prioritate în dreptul nostru dacă ar veni în contradicție cu legislația României: dreptul la respectarea vieții private și de familie (art. 8) și dreptul la căsătorie (art. 12). Cu alte cuvinte: prin căsătorie se naște o familie, dar o familie nu este neaparat rezultatul unei căsătorii.

Tipuri de familii: Este important să facem această distincție de la bun început, întrucât „noțiunea de viaţă de familie este complexă, cuprinzând inclusiv raporturile de familie de fapt, distinct de relaţiile de familie rezultând din căsătorie” (para. 40 din Decizia CCR 580/2016).

Așa cum am arătat și cu alt prilej, există mai multe tipuri de familie: familia nucleară (alcătuită din bărbat, femeie și copil) care…

View original post 739 more words

5. Iașul – un pod prea îndepărtat

Source: 5. Iașul – un pod prea îndepărtat

Al cincilea episod din amintirile lui Daniel Branzai. Aici mai ales despre Iasi.

Roger Olson – What is Fundamentalism?

Here are, according tto Roger Olson, the ‘symptoms’ of the spiritual disease called ‘fundamentalism’:

1) A tendency to elevate doctrines historically considered “secondary” (non-essentials) to the status of dogmas such that anyone who questions them questions the gospel itself.

2) A tendency to eschew “Christian fellowship” with fellow evangelical Christians considered doctrinally “impure” along with a tendency to misrepresent them in order to influence others to avoid them.

3) A tendency to “hunt” for “heresies” among fellow evangelical Christians and to reward fellow fundamentalists who “find” and “expose” them—even where said “heresies” are not truly heresies by any major confessional standards shared among evangelical Protestants.

4) A tendency to place doctrinal “truth” above ethics such that misrepresenting others’ views in order to exclude or marginalize them, if not get them fired, is considered justified.

5) A tendency to be obsessed with “liberal theological thinking” that leads to seeing it where it does not exist along with a tendency to be averse to all ambiguity or uncertainty about doctrinal and biblical matters.

(Source, ‘What Is “Fundamentalism?”’)

NOTE: In case you wonder if you are a fundamentalist.




Roger Olson – What is Liberal Theology?

Here are, according to Roger Olson, the ‘hallmarks’ of modern liberal theology:

1) A tendency to reduce the Bible to “the Christian classic” that is “inspired” insofar as it is inspiring;

2) A tendency to reduce Christianity itself to ethics such that doctrine is an expression of collective opinion always open to revision in light of changing cultural conditions;

3) A tendency to embrace and promote individualism in spirituality and doctrine while insisting on certain controversial ethical positions as matters of justice and therefore beyond debate;Read More »

Marching for Science | Vinoth Ramachandra

Source: Marching for Science | Vinoth Ramachandra

Dr Ramachandra, prophetically again, about how science undermines itself these days, by becoming a servant of Big Business.

Warning: This Post Could Be Hazardous to Your Paralysis | UnTangled

Source: Warning: This Post Could Be Hazardous to Your Paralysis | UnTangled

Kelly Flanagan on digital detox. NOT A SAFE POST! 🙂

Richard Rohr Meditation: Saved by the Cross

Source: Richard Rohr Meditation: Saved by the Cross

In case you wondered what Fr Rohr thinks about the Cross (I know my dear friend Eugen Matei does). This spells it out a bit.