Gregory MacDonald, the pseudonymous author of the brilliant and controversial book, The Evangelical Universalist, informed me that he has started his own blog. See here:
http://evangelicaluniversalist.blogspot.com/
While I will obviously add this to my 'stunningly bold heresy' blogroll, he has posted some really stimulating material! Rather amusingly, he draws our attention to a radio discussion in which he took part – with disguised voice of course!
Christ Sein, Küng
Existiert Gott?, Küng
Der Anfang aller Dinge, Küng
Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, John R. Franke
Shadow Sides. God in the Old Testament, Eric Peels
The Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight
Gebete des Lebens, Karl Rahner
Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright
Universal Salvation? The Current Debite, ed. by Robin Parry and C. H. Partridge
20 comments:
Can a universalist really be an evangelical and an evangelical a universalist? Isn't this the same sort of oxymoron as we might encounter in saying 'christian atheist' or 'atheist christian'?
This is a welcome event. Thank you Mr MacDonald! It's very encouraging that someone who knows the Bible starts to blog.
Hi Jim, my answer to you pointed question is "yes", and I think that it is not the same thing as "evangelical atheist", because Gregory, for example, makes his case thoroughly biblical, and shows tremendous respect for scripture in his exegtical arguments. If he is right or not is another question! But all of the things that make an evangelical (necessity for conversion, supremacy of scripture etc.) are evident in his work in abundance.
TJ,
Almost all of your comments here make me laugh. But this time you give me a link to laugh at as well. In the words of the Ferrero Rocher advert: "You spoil me"
Ed, thanks for the link. I tried e-mailing the chap who runs that page a while back, but it seems we had connection problems.
Thanks for this, Chris - have added Mr MacDonald to the UKCBD Blogroll.
Replying to Jim: I tend to describe myself as a 'Christian Atheist' - even use it in my facebook profile... I could go on about it a bit more, but that wouldn't be fair on Chris. My point is, there are people who call themselves Christian atheists out here. So why not Evangelical Universalists too?
Why does he have to be non existent? Wouldn't he have more credibility if he at least pretended to be a real person? At first I thought he just wasn't seeking fame, unlike some other birds on the blogosphere, but there is such a big show of the mysterious on his profile of his non existence that my theory in his defence, fell apart. And then the disguised voice on radio? It seems a bit pointless.
'In the words of the Ferrero Rocher advert: "You spoil me"'
Yes, Mr Tillinch - someone has to!
And be sure, laughter is on your side. There is differénce and then there is differánce, you know? Sometimes I don't know which one it is. Then I visit your blog and everything becomes christal clear.
It's pretty obvious that Gregory Macdonald doesn't want to lose his job...Sad. I wonder what will happen when he is confronted face to face with Jesus. "But Lord! I wrote a book that told the truth! Doesn't that count?"
Steph, and Anon,
The reasons for Gregory remaining anonymous has little to do with loosing a job or the desire for prominence. So the monkeys tell me through the grapevine.
TJ, I totally didn't understand your comment! Is that because your mother tongue is a crazy evil foreign one, perhaps?
"TJ, I totally didn't understand your comment! Is that because your mother tongue is a crazy evil foreign one, perhaps?"
No Mr Tillinch, it's not because of my Mother's tongue. I think it is because of the awful weather in the little island in the Atlantic, name of which I can't remember, which has softened your thoughts.
Basically it's all because you are jealous of my eloquence, and that makes you disregard my subtle differentiation or should I say differantiation? Well, let's say differentiation. Combined with the weather conditions in the time of your upbringing - they didn't get very high, did they? - causes the incomprehensibility problem of yours.
But don't worry, there is always places for a biblical scholars, I'm sure! Somewhere? People, please help!
"it's not because of my Mother's tongue"
Apart from the fact that it is. With humour like that you'd have to be a FIN. Own up!
For non-English speakers in this conversation, a "Fin" is a Finish person. Just in case you only know Derridian neologisms ;-)
Herra Tillinch yrittää selkeästi olla hauska. Pilkaten pienen kansakuntamme kieltä hän ainoastaan yrittää viedä katseen pois oman syrjäisen saaristonsa mitättömyydestä. Sen nimi taisi olla Englanti.
Voisiko kuitenkaan olla pahempaa kuin englantilainen natsivaltakunnassa? Ehkä voisi, mutta nyt ei tule mieleen oikein hyvää esimerkkiä. Voisi yrittää kai jotain derridalaista neologismia, joista tuo jätkä kai jotain kuvittelee ymmärtävänsä, mutta ei niistäkään mitään hyötyä olisi.
Asia on kuitenkin hyvin selvä ja yksinkertainen, lainaan kuitenkin vielä Tunnustuskirjojamme:
"Toisaalta se sama tarkoittaa Herramme Kristuksen koko opetusta, jota hän itse antoi hoitaessaan saamavirkaa täällä maailmassa, sekä kaikkea, mitä hän käski julistaa uuden liiton aikana. Näin evankeliumiin kuuluu sekä lain selittäminen että Jumalan, hänen taivaallisen Isänsä, armon ja lempeyden julistaminen. Sitä tarkoittaa Mark. 1:15: "Jeesuksen Kristuksen, Jumalan Pojan, evankeliumin alku." Heti sen jälkeen mainitaan suppeasti julistuksen pääkohdat: parannus ja syntien anteeksiantaminen. Samaan tapaan Kristus antaa ylösnousemuksensa jälkeen apostoleille käskyn saarnata evankeliumia koko maailmassa (Mark. 16:15). Kaiken julistettavan opin hän tiivistää muutamiin harvoihin sanoihin (Luuk. 24:46 s.): "Niin on kirjoitettu, että Kristus oli kärsivä ja kolmantena päivänä nouseva kuolleista ja että parannusta ja syntien anteeksiantamusta on saarnattava kaikille kansoille." Myös Paavali sanoo koko opetuksensa sisältöä evankeliumiksi (Ap.t. 20:24), mutta tiivistää sen näihin kahteen pääkohtaan: kääntymys Jumalan puoleen ja usko Kristukseen. Siinä mielessä on siis oikein sanoa, että evankeliumi on julistusta parannuksesta ja syntien anteeksiantamuksesta. Tällöin on kyseessä generalis definitio; sana "evankeliumi" ymmärretään laajemmassa merkityksessään, ottamatta huomioon lain ja evankeliumin varsinaista erotusta. Ovathan Johannes, Kristus ja apostolit aloittaneet julistuksensa vaatimalla parannusta. He eivät ole siis selittäneet ja tähdentäneet yksinomaan Jumalan armollista lupausta antaa synnit anteeksi, vaan he ovat tähdentäneet myös Jumalan lakia."
(Formula Concordiae, V, jostain sieltäpäin...)
Sen pitemmittä puheitta jätän herra Tillinchin jauhamaan näitä englantilaisia vitsejä; Finn -> FIN!!! Hahahahaha!!! Vitsi kuinka hauskaa... No ehkä jonkun etnisen ryhmittymän mielestä. Kai niilläkin on jonkinlainen kansallistunto kehittynyt - olisi saanut kehittyä vielä pari sataa vuotta ennen kuin alkoivat sitä enempää levittelemään. Kai se onni potkaisee mitättömämpiäkin. Joskus. Edes kerran.
Well, that just ain't funny, nor clever ....
*Gets read to copy and paste to systran translation engines to discover truth of tj's identity*
Drat! Didn't find an online Finish translator. I'll be sure to keep looking ...
Mr Tillinch, you are absolutely right, on both accounts.
But, your derridaian (?) 'neologism' is even more stupid.
I think I have a boring life.
I realise that, so why? A pseudonym is fine but why the whole wrap? It seems a bit silly.
Chris, I think you and the monkeys are wrong about GM. It has to be that he would lose his job. Who else would care that he believed in EU? Is it kind of like me hiding behind "anon" because i really don't want to be exposed to some who might know me? Because they may find out that I really am a believer?
...you may be right. It does seem that those who are theologians/scholars/the great ordained ones don't really have to believe Scripture...because you are allowed to keep your jobs. SO....what is up with GM? Why? What's the point? I agree with Steph...it's silly.
Hi Steph,
and Anon
Well, I will say that I am right (of course!) about GM - the real he/she does not want to endanger an organisation he/she is associated with. But that aside, have you read his book yet? I lent it out (darn it) and want it back!
Back to Jim's oxymoron opener: see this discussion: http://jasonclark.ws/2008/02/25/evangelical-universalism-oxymoron/
And apologies that my previous URL didn't link: here it is again: http://christianbookshopsblog.org.uk/2008/05/08/the-evangelical-universalist/ (sorry, I'm used to WordPress automatically rendering URLs... c'mon, Google: you can do it too, you know... )
I read that GM chose a pseudonym because he has written several other books (by his real name) that he feels are more important than this book and he doesn't want people to reject those books offhandedly because of his pro-universalism stance.
-- Pat
Post a Comment