• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

You are here: Home / 2011 / Archives for March 2011

P3…Practice, Presence, & Place at the Inhabit Conference: Homebrewed Christianity 95

March 31, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 1 Comment

The West Coast Gathering for the growing transition toward rooted Practice, Presence, and Place

Parishioners, Missiologists, Urban Planners, Doulas, New Monastics, Micro Entrepreneurs, Permaculturists, Church Planters, Agrarians, Locality Gurus, Liturgists, Artisans, Practical Theologians, Relational Counselors, Master Gardeners, Community Cultivators, Everyday Mystics. The list keeps growing. They are all coming to Inhabit on April 29-30, 2011.

Over 40 place practitioners and missional innovators who will be at the conference
A Hybrid Conference schedule including multiple participatory environments
Dozens of missional communities representing West Coast neighborhoods
Upcoming events and projects from our growing list of sponsors and micro sponsors

Transform is ubercool

Dwight Friesen is awesome.

inhabit on twitter

 

 

 

Practice, Presence, and Place at the Inhabit Conference: Homebrewed Christianity 95 [ 31:10 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Filed Under: podcast

Romans 10 in the Spirit of Universalism (not Exclusivism)

March 29, 2011 by Bill 3 Comments

It’s worth reiterating the importance of what was said in Deacon Hall’s post about not making demands on God.  Only a universalism with this conditioning could be ”biblical.”  Indeed, concerning these things, “Do not be arrogant, but tremble” (Rom 11:20).

And to stress God’s absolute freedom, doesn’t Paul warn that God could have made us, like clay in the potter’s hands, “objects for his wrath” (Rom 9:22)?  But as recipients of “the good news that’s better than that,”[i] we choose to believe and humbly confess: this isn’t the last word.  The love and character of God revealed in Christ says otherwise.

The voices of condemnation and heresy hunting have been too loud lately.  They leave their traces everywhere on the blogosphere.  Normally, we can ignore them, or at least drown them out with a more generous orthodoxy, not laying claim to any one interpretation absolutely.  But instead of running for the hills when we hear red flag phrases like “biblical Christianity” thrown around, it might be better to answer this time.

In light of this, after Tripp and Deacon Hall’s posts, and in the spirit of “continuing the conversation” Rob Bell has started into the “next inning” (McLaren), I thought it might be constructive to look at a common exclusivist proof text from Romans 10:14-15 (see recent examples here and here), by which certain sects try to justify the belief that the vast majority of humanity in history must be consigned to hell – whatever hell is exactly (see a great post by Ben Witherington at Patheos about this here).  I think that challenging this narrow and restrictive viewpoint, successfully or not, was Rob Bell’s chief concern in Love Wins.

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

Roman 9-11 as a whole is concerned with the tension between Israel’s disobedience and election.

Chapter 10 in particular addresses the gospel – the “Word of or about Christ/messiah/God” – as that which Israel indeed has “heard” before and should know. Paul references Isaiah 53:1, and the aorist (past) tense of the Greek word for “obey” in this case clearly makes reference to an announcement already received, having prepared the way as a condition for the present preaching of Christ by “missionaries.”[ii] Paul is saying that the Hebrews should have recognized Jesus as a “suffering servant” like the figure depicted in Isaiah’s song.

The correlations between the latter part of Isaiah and Romans are striking:

Isaiah 49:18 (see Rom 14:11), 50:8 (see Rom 8:33), 51:1 (see Rom 9:31), 51:8 (see Rom 1:17), 52:5 (see Rom 2:24), 52:7 (see Rom 10:15), 54:16 (see Rom 9:22), 59:7 (see Rom 3:15-17), 59:20 (see Rom 11:26)

But concerning v. 14 most explicitly, which is where the attention must be focused:

“To explain ou ouk ekousan as meaning ‘about whom they have not heard’ is not really feasible; for the use of akouein with the simple genitive of the person meaning ‘to hear about (someone)’ would be very unusual.”[iii] In other words, Paul is not condemning those who have not heard yet.  Calvin’s commentary, which is otherwise still useful, awkwardly takes these questions to be referencing the Gentiles, but this makes little sense in view of Paul’s on-going mission, seeking of funds, and intention to travel all the way to Spain.  He’s clearly just talking about Israel here (10.1) since he answers his own question in the affirmative (10.18 – “did they not hear? Of course they did”).

Furthermore, the “beautiful feet” of v. 15 would be merely “decoration” if this verse were meant to exclude those who haven’t heard a priori, but instead it forms the next step in the argument and draws our attention to Isaiah 52:7, showing that that prophetic message had indeed been fulfilled, and the apostolic proclamation commissioned.  This runs quite contrary to interpretations by those like Thomas Schreiner who insist on an exclusivist reading, as he even laments the inclusivist leanings of C.S. Lewis and Billy Graham![iv]

So what about the Gentiles?  When referenced (which is not as often here), the context is quite optimistic, and meant to contrast their acceptance of the Gospel with the rejection on the part of the Jews.  Then comes the Deuteronomy quote:

“I will make you jealous of one that is not a nation, and with a foolish nation I will provoke you” – v. 19.

And even Isaiah anticipates this.  Israel’s rejection of the prophets had been seen before:

“All day long, I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Isaiah 65:2).

Jesus echoes this in Luke 13:34:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

Ok, great, so God loves the Gentiles . . .But does God abandon Israel?  No, God remains faithful to the covenant – something Paul has in mind throughout the letter, just as was promised to Abraham:[v]

“I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!” (Rom 11:1)

There is some harsh language in this passage, so we must be careful and not take our “inclusion” for granted, but before the closing doxology, “Paul’s [final] emphasis is on the positive rather than the negative: this remnant people is being formed on the basis of God’s gift in Christ Jesus (5:16; 6:23).”[vi]

30Just as you who [Gentiles] were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they [Israel] too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Rom 11:30-32).

Sounds like a good promise!  Is Paul contradicting himself?  No, for the people of Israel are still representative of God’s chosen people whom he is saving, and this judgment at present is penultimate,[vii] but the justification of the ungodly by faith on account of God’s righteousness (perhaps the major theme of Romans), which is also the resurrection from the dead, is the only hope both of the world in general and also of Israel.[viii]

Let us be awed by the depths of the riches and the mercies and purposes of God! (11:33-36)



[i] See Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (HarperOne, 2011).

[ii] Luke Timothy Johnson, Reading Romans: a literary and theological commentary (Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 2008), 173.

[iii] C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (T&T Clark Int’l, 2004), 534.

[iv] See Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Baker Books, 1998).

[v] Johnson, Reading Romans, 177.

[vi] N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (IVP Academic, 2009), 180.

[vii] Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics, 1st ed. (HarperOne, 1996), 415.

[viii] Ernst Kasemann, New Testament Questions of Today (SCM Press, 1969), 187.

Filed Under: bible stuff, thinking

Triune Atonement with Andrew Sung Park: Homebrewed Christianity 94

March 28, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 2 Comments

Are you frustrated by the general inability for the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus to address both the sins of the world, the shame we carry, and the injustice of the world?  Does it seems like when it comes to atonement most have a dramatic propensity to narrow the scope?  These frustrations were mine until I met Andrew Sung Park. On this podcast you get (Process Theology + Liberation Theology) “the Blood of Jesus” = Legendary Christology Podcast!  No Joke!!!

Very very rarely do we have a podcast where I personally get excited thinking back to the conversation months later.  Andrew Sung Park is literally one of my favorite living theologians.  Triune Atonement is the best introduction to atonement theories in the context of its contemporary challenges & From Hurt to Healing was a game changer for me personally.  Park has the ability to combine acute theological insights, the breath of scripture, and the complexity of our world with a liberating impulse.  What I find beautiful about Park’s vision is the ability to give a Christocentric vision of the faith that addresses both the sinners and the sinned against in our world and ourselves.

After telling his story to which led him to becoming a theologian he begins the atonement throw down by offering Billy Graham a second sermon (18min.)  The interview gets more and more intense all the way through to the end.  We end up discussing Niebuhr’s understanding of atonement, the feminist critique, ‘Han’ as a conceptual tool, The Passion of the Christ (movie), the Holy Spirit’s role in atonement, and in the end….that’s right….. THE POWER OF THE BLOOD!

Let us know what you think and do share the Brew with someone near You!

Check Him Out Speaking at the Transforming Theology session at the American Academy of Religion.

Here’s Dr. Park’s Faculty page (Go Hit the Facebook “LIKE” button)

Enjoy a FREE article by Dr. Park on forgiveness…..since it’s free share it!!!

Triune Atonement with Andrew Sung Park: Homebrewed Christianity 94 [ 1:00:43 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Filed Under: podcast Tagged With: andrew sung park, atonement, christology, process theology

A Universalist Call to (Open) Arms

March 25, 2011 by Deacon Hall 5 Comments

I’ve been vaguely following all the talk of universalism on the net lately and have found myself in a couple arguments with some persons concerning the nature and possibility of it. And what I’ve found more interesting than anything is just how defensive universalists are about the subject, namely, that they would have to be the ones to defend themselves against cries of heresy. Well, my universalist friends, it’s time to put down the shield and take up the sword because you, it seems to me, are far more in the right than those who demand something like hell.

Let me be clear, here: there is a place where universalism can go wrong, a point that our buddy Tripp, through Steve Harmon, has already made. That is, when it takes a stance that turns into is something like a demand that God save all. We ought not and need not go there. Rather, God—his eating with tax-collectors and prostitutes—seems to speak enough to the possibility of universal salvation that we need not demand it of God. Let God be whom God is, and if the God reveals God’s self in Christ, I trust God fully with both my, and everyone else’, ultimate fate. So let universalism reject any demand that God fulfill our hopes and desires for such. Let it affirm, however, that God just may be the one who, in God’s love for the whole world as revealed in Christ, gave us such hopes and desires in faith.

On the other hand, let us universalists also take to the offense, lovingly reminding those who would sneer at this possibility both of God’s love and of God’s freedom. Indeed, those who a priori reject universalism, it seems, can only do so by denying God a possibility. To deny God a possibility, however, is to attempt force God’s hand in a way that it ought not be forced: in accordance with my demands and recognition of what I believe ought to be the case. In other words, it is to set up an idol not in the image of a calf but in the image of myself and my demands on how God ought to be. I might remind the reader, however, that this very move is what many , including Augustine and Luther, interpret original sin to be.

For instance, one of my favorite anti-universalist arguments in this regard is based in the notion of double-predestination. Because God has offered salvation to some, God must deny salvation to others; that is, a yes to some means a no to others. How absurd! Since when is a yes to some a no to others? If I bought one child an ice-cream cone am I denying another an ice-cream cone? I suppose it depends on how many ice-cream cones I have, and if I’m the God who creates out of nothing, I should have plenty. The notion of double-predestination is an attempt, then, to unleash a finite logic onto the infinite God, and it demands far more than a universalist, who only ever affirms the possibility of universal salvation, ever could.

I write this, then, only as a platform to give universalists some confidence. The position, when it does not demand of God something that we cannot demand, seems more in accordance to me with self-expression of God in Christ than the alternative. In other words, I want here to give a universalist call to arms. By a call to arms, however, I mean a call to open our arms to the degree that we can to all those whom God can, just may, and I hope will save, including those who would have us sent to hell for such a position.

Filed Under: bible stuff, philosophy, random, thinking

Your First Steps into Biblical Universalism…

March 21, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 15 Comments

So the number of permanent residents in hell is on your mind? I’m gonna guess it wasn’t a few weeks ago until Rob Bell solicited a few twitter-bombs from some conservative dogma police. Since then it has been really popular to blast Bell for being un-biblical, heterodox, and all other sorts of bad stuff. That’s cool if you are interested in getting into someone’s head, supplying their intentions, and making judgments on behalf of the truth (which these individuals have undiluted access to!!). BUT if the conversation has got you thinking…is ‘love wins’ really a dramatic deviation from the church’s tradition and just some sexy packaging for liberal theology I would like to introduce you to a few Early Church Fathers who could introduce you to a ‘love wins’ way to read the Bible: Clement of Alexandria (ca. 160-215 C.E.), Origen (ca. 185-ca. 251 C.E.), and Gregory of Nyssa (331/340-ca. 395 C.E.)

These fellas are not just minor voices who should be ignored but essential for the develop of the doctrine of the Trinity (ps…it’s a big deal doctrine). I will avoid a discussion of the Trinity and their brilliant philosophical modification of Platonism to simply say that the nature of divine love articulated in the Trinity led them toward affirming God’s universalism. (1) But more than the Trinity it was the Bible that got’em!

Don’t believe me? Then try it out! Remember these three things and read some Bible to see if Biblical universalism is jiving with you.

Here are some of these three fellas favorite Bible passages…John 12:32; Acts 3:21; Romans 5:18-21, 11:25-26a, 32; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; 15:22-28; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 1:10; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 2:4; Titus 2:11; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2. For serious play-by-play through these Church Fathers’ readings of the Bible see Steve Harmon‘s book Every Knee Should Bow: Biblical Rationales for Universal Salvation in Early Christian Thought. (2) But before you read them check out these three features of Biblical Universalism and see if they help frame your Bible reading.

1) God is Love….this means that there is nothing about God, in God, or comes from God that is not love. Love is not something God occasionally does or engages in but is the very essence of God. To say ‘God is Love’ is to say that the great mystery of God is a mystery in which every depth that is yet to be understood or revealed is another depth of love. God is love. Love known and unknown but nothing but love.

2) Love requires freedom…..this means that God’s actual goal for creation, to bring it to fruition within the divine love (Paul’s ‘all-in-all’), requires creation to have genuine freedom. Even Calvinists pretend its true in their daily lives. For example, when two lovers consummate their marriage in a passionate act of sweet love making, freedom, vulnerability, and risk is what made the actual act – intercourse – making love and not rape. The freedom to give oneself to another and to receive the other as other is not a human contaminant to love but essential. Because the God who is Love desires to love the whole world and genuine love involves freedom, the creatures of the Creator have received the gift of freedom to love God as a result of God’s own free decision to create and love.

3) Love Wins….God’s love wins. Why? Because the God who is Love is the one and only true God. The infinite Creator of all the universe who is love, is infinitely committed to loving and living in love with the world. This finite world and every finite person within it will remain for all eternity an object of the pure divine love. So both the Creator and creature’s freedom can never be compromised for premature victory. This means a). No one can or ever will be forced into loving God for the very love God desires requires freedom & b) Nothing, including one’s death or present state of response, can force the infinite God of Love to quit pursuing any and every part of God’s creation.

I hope you can see how this is NOT universalism of the blank check variety. The only thing universal here is the scope and reservoir of God’s love. The eschatological optimism is not about anyone, anything, or any action other than the God revealed in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is precisely that very particular vision of God that can lead one to be optimistic, hopeful, and excited about the future. Why? because the world’s future is God.

1. The Trinity still opens one’s theological imagination in an eschatologically optimistic direction. There is of course Karl Barth but a Greek Orthodox Priest who is a friend told me he saw all these ‘love wins’ posts on facebook and read enough quotes from the book to think it sounds like a pretty normal idea in Orthodox circles.

2. This book is really excellent and was personally transformative for me in undergrad!

Filed Under: books, engaging, media Tagged With: eschatology, Rob Bell, universalism

Naked Spirituality with Brian McLaren: Homebrewed Christianity 93

March 17, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 5 Comments

Brian McLaren is back and this time he is talking Naked Spirituality!  This conversation Brian will bring his spiritual sensitivity and poignant prose to one of the most pressing challenges we face…spirituality.  Over the course of the conversation Brian discusses…well spirituality of course, the “spiritual but not religious,” Christian diversity in tribe and locaiton, Urban Suburban Rural spiritualists, Indigenous theologies, Sarah Palin, Rob Bell, and non-duality.

This episode will also introduce you to the newest Homebrewed Mas…like editing them so we don’t have 15 recorded and NOT released…Any way, follow him on Twitter! Only 90 followers? He needs a Homebrewed Bump!!!

* More McLaren on Homebrewed…Reframing Jesus, Faith & the Politics of Change, and even a little Easter time.

Standard Podcast [ 1:04:28 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Filed Under: podcast

Rob Bell Wins

March 16, 2011 by Bo Sanders 7 Comments

I watched the live- webcast of the Rob Bell interview about his new book “Love Wins” and blogged a couple of thoughts on it at  an Everyday Theology. It got a good response so I thought I would post it here.
In case you had not seen the webcast, you can watch the video of the event here

Here are  my two quick thoughts on it:

  1. We are not having this conversation in a vacuum
  2. Rob Bell is up to something

We are not in a vacuum and the context of this conversation is post-enlightenment / post-christendom. That means a couple of things:
a) everyone has their own bible
b) most people can read it
c) evangelicals do not have Popes or councils to make decisions on this kind of stuff
d) for Reformed folks (Piper, Driscol, Keller, etc) the bible just doesn’t say what they need it to say for this thing to be air tight.

SO – we have a couple of issues!
The biggest issue is that we take passages like Matthew 7 (which one of the white women in Rob’s audience asked about) where Jesus says “wide is the road that leads to destruction” and we THINK that it is about Hell. It is not. We have been taught to read the Bible wrong. We trade one word for another all the time.  I wrote about that here.

Then – some one like Rob comes along and calls that into question (he is up to something) and people FREAK out.

Matthew 7 isn’t about hell. But we got so comfortable thinking that it was … now we are uncomfortable with how comfortable we were.

I’ll give you another example: Paul never mentions hell. In any of sermons (Acts) or letters. It is not there.  I wrote about its absence here.

Here is another one: Revelation – which is not to be read literally – teaches (even to those who DO think it is literal) that hell is not eternal. Even in that scenario hell is temporary and is emptied into the lake of fire. They are not the same place or for the same purpose.  read Revelation 20:14-15.

But since many don’t know that… we end up asking “wait! if there is no hell … then why are we even doing evangelism or missions“. The answer is that we were doing them for the wrong reason. Some of it was colonial … some of it was worse.

We should do evangelism and we should do mission – but not because of this understanding of hell.

So – I am not saying that Rob Bell is right. I am not saying that everyone will be saved. But the reality is that many have not taken these passage seriously.  Passages such as:

Colossians 1:20 “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

Romans 5:10 “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

2 Corinthians 5:18 “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation”

That’s my 2 cents.  What did you think?

Filed Under: bible stuff, engaging, media, thinking Tagged With: Bible, hell, Love Wins, Rob Bell, webcast

Christ the Key with Kathryn Tanner: Homebrewed Christianity 92

March 14, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 4 Comments

Kathryn Tanner has written (at least personally) the most compelling, creative, and constructive Christology in a long time. This interview was actually conducted in person by Philip Clayton.  They were both students together at Yale as the ‘Yale School’ was in its formative period.  Being friends and familiar with each others’ work makes for a fun conversation.

A while back I wrote a review of her Christology, Christ the Key, here.  You can check out all her books (and get Christ the Key) here.

The book itself came out of a series of lectures she gave at Princeton.  Bloggers showed up and got a clickin’ Lecture I, Lecture II, Lecture III, Lecture IV, Lecture V, Lecture VI, Memoria Dei has a series of posts that go through the book and there is a brief post on theopolitical. She is also loved at Faith and Theology!

Christ the Key with Kathryn Tanner: Homebrewed Christianity 92 [ 56:00 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Filed Under: podcast Tagged With: christology, kathryn tanner, Philip Clayton, theology

Another Lenten Challenge for Peter Rollins

March 10, 2011 by Bill 14 Comments

Peter Rollins rocked my seminary world with his first two books, How (not) to Speak of God and The Fidelity of Betrayal.  I have a deep appreciation for him.  His parables compel me to act.  His message disallows taking comfort in mere “belief”.  At the same time, he gives transformative power to my doubts!  Perhaps most importantly, Pete exudes nothing but kindness and concern when you meet him.  His faith community in Ireland called Ikon has even inspired others like my friend Adam Moore to start the Void Collective in Waco, TX.  It is no exaggeration for me to say that there would be something lacking in my faith today if I had not encountered Peter Rollins.

My only concern is that, in general, Pete sometimes seems to be responding to a particular version of Christianity that has tended to superficially classify God as static, other, unrelational, and irrelevant to the world, depicting God as a separate deity “out there” that doesn’t directly affect me “here”.  A close look at most of Christian theology throughout the centuries, however, will reveal that this was never supposed to be the conception of God – other theological problems in the tradition of course notwithstanding.  Yes Christianity has recourse to the existential crisis in Ecclesiastes, or Jesus being forsaken on the cross – and we desperately need to retrieve these motifs as Pete does – but can its sources for consolation be left out?  For instance, God as immutable: unlike the Greek notion, in the Christian sense, God understood in this way was always Trinitarian!  Trinitarian meaning we assume the Incarnation, in which the ineffable God of eternity is profoundly affected by us, and especially by the union with humanity in Jesus.  The incarnation, among other things, also implies God’s willingness to make humanity a dialogue partner.[1] In other words, contra Rollins, 1) believing in God, and 2) what God says to me, cannot be separated.

Nonetheless, the sad fact is that much of popular evangelicalism in America in particular maintains a notion of God that is indeed akin to precisely what Rollins is criticizing.  So in this respect, I think what Pete is doing is incredibly valuable.  BUT, here’s the looming problem – Pete’s project provides a Christian form that is often without Christian content.  It is a philosophy of the Event without a theology of divine action (i.e., Zizek, Badiou, etc.).  And it is in this sense that what he is doing might be somewhat less valuable – even misleading.

Maybe Tony Jones really is being an “annoying wee troublemaker” – but it sure was funny!  My challenge to Pete, if I can dare be so bold as to challenge someone who has otherwise completely been challenging me, is this: Keep doing what you’re doing!  We do need it.  But as long as you refer to yourself as as Christian, maybe read some orthodox theology from time to time as well – that way you can do something constructive and not just deconstructive with it when you talk to people  – something other than turning Bonhoeffer or Pascal into figures that they were not :)   As a postmodernist, can’t Marion be your guide more than Derrida?  And even though this is exactly what you apparently mean not to do, can you figure out a way to give people the resurrection?  Not as historical fact or even with metaphysics, and not because we need answers or cheap reassurance, but because doubt without hope – real hope – ultimately leads nowhere but to despair – even for the “doubter in denial” who needs to experience the rupture of the Real.


[1] Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory : The Dramatis Personae : The Person in Christ (Balthasar, Hans Urs Von//Theo-Drama) (Ignatius Press, 1993), 72.

Filed Under: books, church history, emergent, philosophy, thinking

Peter Rollins Gives Up Atheism For Lent?: Homebrewed Christianity 91

March 8, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 13 Comments

This week Peter Rollins joins the podcast with an interview for the ages….or at least the week!  Not only does Pete join the cast but Tony Jones jumps into the mix and lays down a Lenten Challenge to Pete…..to give up his (Christian) Atheism for Lent.  If you are wondering exactly why a ‘famous Christian thinker\speaker type’ is being asked to give up atheism for lent, then listen to his visit to the Common Sense atheist podcast where the atheist host has a hard time seeing how Pete is (not) an atheist.  The challenge is out and the interview that followed was exciting.   So go put this Belfast philosopher’s game in your pipe iPod and smoke play it.  You can read Tony Jones’ challenge for yourself right HERE. If for some reason you don’t own Pete’s books, iPhone App, seen his videos, heard these audios, follow him on Twitter, or facebook him – then DO IT.

It was wonderful to get to interview Pete and spend a couple days with him when he was in SoCal a few weeks ago.  Hope you all enjoy the conversation and that Pete enjoys taking up God for Lent!

Peter Rollins Gives Up Atheism For Lent?: Homebrewed Christianity 91 [ 51:12 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Filed Under: podcast Tagged With: atheism, Lent, peter rollins, podcast, Tony Jones
« Older Posts

Search

Support the brew

The latest

  • There is no Evangelical Orthodoxy
  • Postmodern Youth Ministry Under the Influence…
  • Theology Nerds Are Sexy…the shirt
  • Ministers Taking their Parts Out In Public!
  • What God doesn’t say and how not to read the Bible
  • TNT: Eschatology – Resurrection call and response

Transforming Christian Theology

The Homebrewed Hosting Service

Host Unlimited Domains on 1 Account Happy Holidays! Download a FREE audiobook today!

Friends

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2012 · Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Podcast powered by podPress v8.8.10.12