Avatar

grwm for ministry

@iustuspeccator

Christian discourse blog. Queer affirming. Lutheran. ze/hir or he/him

About Me

This is a side blog so I don't annoy my irl friends with Christian discourse lol. I'm Bel. My identity is foremost Christian and then, in no particular order: Lutheran, queer, trans, white, USAmerican. Also some other things but these are the perspectives I cannot speak outside of.

I am a first year seminarian and candidate for ministry! My current ministry interests are expressions of future church life, pathways to Christianity for the (interested) un- and de-churched, reclaiming Christianity from the American right-wing, and intra- and interfaith ecumenism. (Phrasing borrowed from Amos Yong.)

My ongoing theological/historical interests are forgiveness, the Judaic roots of Christianity, universal salvation, universalism/religious plurality, queer theology, the Apostolic Age, Patristic Age and Reformation. This doesn't mean these are areas of expertise but rather areas of exploration and questioning.

I like to argue, a word which here means to make reasoned statements to prove or refute an argument, especially for the purpose of learning. I do not like to fight. I value source citation, precision in language, and sincerity. I want to really stress again that arguing is fun for me, so if I'm arguing on your post and it's not fun for you, just block me. Or if you want to continue the discussion but it's not fun, let me know and I'll adjust my tone.

Thanks for reading, peace be with you.

PS the cat in my header is Patches and that's her laying on one of my Bibles while I read a different one because I couldn't make her leave <3

Something is bothering me about the application of "no true Scotsman" to saying something isn't Christian. This is true only up to a point. Because at a certain point, there is a boundary where someone isn't a Scotsman. I'm not a Scotsman, for instance. I could say that I'm Scottish, because I have ancestors who come from Scotland. But you can't compel Scottish people to accept me as Scottish.

Similarly, there is a boundary around what's actually Christian. The definition of Christian isn't actually "everyone who says they are." And it's not everyone who reveres or venerates Christ. Muslims and Manichaeans revere Jesus but aren't Christian. Not everyone accepts non-Nicene Christianity as Christianity. And movements can be destroyed by allowing in everyone who says "I'm a _____" without pushing back. Look at the watering down of feminism. "It's feminist to conform to the status quo, actually," was a devastating boundary shift.

So here we come to a charge that I must accept everyone who says they are a Christian as part of my faith. And it's difficult to create a satisfying response because we have two things that are true:

1. People bearing the name "Christian" are causing significant, real harm in our name and it doesn't do any good and it doesn't repair any harm to tell our neighbors "well, ACTUALLY that was a FAKE Christian and I'm different and better 😌"

2. Some of these beliefs aren't Christian. These are beliefs that cut you off from the body of Christ. White nationalism ISN'T Christian. Jesus crossed boundaries of nation and ethnicity all the time. And this is beyond being a church of wheat and tares. There is a swath of Christianity right now that has set up an idol in the form of a man they call Jesus, but they are not in any way worshipping the God revealed in scripture. I can't accept that as Christianity. Christian nationalism is idol worship.

I think it mainly comes down to we have a secular facing responsibility and a church facing responsibility. It's the difference between I wouldn't tell anyone recounting how they suffered at Christian misbehavior "that wasn't a real Christian™️" but I would tell (and have told) other Christians "that belief is not Christian, it's not scriptural, repent and return to the true faith."

We're not talking about "no TRUE Christian would say cuss word/take the Lord's name in vain." Yes, TRUE Christians would do and have done and will do horrible things and we can't absolve ourselves through distance. But we are also talking about a deep theological sickness in our body. We have the right to fight off that sickness. We have the obligation to fight it off before it kills us.

Mainline Protestants for a really long time have tried the strategy of "just BE a better Christian" while these conservative churches actively prey on our membership and guess what, it's not working. We need to SPEAK BACK to these people. And "this isn't Christian" is not a tool I'm ready to dump from my toolbox.

Stop allowing the devil to beat you up over your past. If you have repented then it is under the blood of Jesus....leave it there. The devil wants you to live with guilt and shame but the blood of Jesus covers your guilt and shame so walk in the peace of knowing you really are forgiven and free.

Obsessed with John's commentary, it's so funny. Actual snitch. It's important to note none of the other gospels mention who cut the guy's ear off, and none mention Judas' thieving either

The last supper one is ENDLESSLY funny to me it's so messy gay coded?? Peter won't ask Jesus himself, he asks John. John activates cuddle mode to get information? Jesus is right there can't he hear Peter asking? they're so funny

Christblr, I’m curious:

Ik a lot of the people in my circle have a …. Nuanced relationship with Catholicism, so I’m curious about everyone, regardless of denomination. If you consider yourself a Christian, do you believe in purgatory as a part of the after life?

I clicked no. Ihave 0 formulated beliefs about the afterlife. I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting and I don't pretend to any knowledge about the logistics thereof.

I was a confident universal salvationist before starting seminary, but reading Cardinal Walter Kasper's book Mercy in my first semester convinced me to pray for the deceased in part because of the long tradition of doing so and also because of... uncertainty. He writes:

"Still, the boundary remains: we can hope for the salvation of all, but we cannot factually know that all will be saved.

[...] The only answer open to us, on the basis of biblical testimony, is unconditional trust in the immeasurable mercy of God, who knows ways, inscrutable to us, and who never cease to court human beings to make their positive response attractive."

He goes on to reference Paul the Apostle, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, Thérèse of Lisieux and more as both interceding for the salvation of others and offering themselves as sacrifice for them. (Pages 109-110)

This is now where I rest on our resurrection. More than any other logistical belief I am now focused on prayer for others, the offering of myself, and the hope and trust in God's mercy.

Did this.......answer the question......?

the rumors are true, however: I'm not loyal to denominational patrimony, whatever that is.

I'm loyal to God my creator, Christ my redeemer, and the Holy Spirit my comforter. where the Lutheran tradition reveals God I am loyal and where it strays I am called to reform.

I'm OBSESSED with the Council of Nicaea. It's spring of 325. Christianity has been legal for 12 years. Constantine wants a unified religion for the Empire but the church has already schismed three different ways in the 3 centuries since the death of Christ, and legalization ITSELF causes a schism. They don't even all agree that being a legal religion is good. Now they're schisming about the nature of Christ. He can't persecute them into agreeing and Lord knows he's tried.

So Constantine calls all the bishops to his fucking summer resort, on the imperial dime. 280-318 bishops are going to argue about if the Logos (Christ) was "eternally begotten" or the first creation of God. Santa Claus is going to punch Arius in the face for saying the Logos was created. While we're here, let's set a date for Easter, which we also never pinned down. And we have to decide if eunuchs can be ordained because EVERYTHING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.

I've been to church conferences. I lose it every time I think about this. Bishops coming into Nicaea tired from the road (travel's a curse). Rural bishops coming to the seat of power for the first time. There's one guy who doesn't understand Robert's Rules and another guy who won't stop bringing up points of order. Someone's sleeping through all the speeches; he's just happy to be on vacation at the emperor's summer resort. The decision made here will form the closest thing Christianity has to a universal declaration of faith for the next 1700 years and it's going to take THREE MONTHS and we have to do it again in 6 years

I'm fancasting my Nicaea movie as we speak

I suspect this fellow may have blocked me because my reblog keeps failing from him, but I worked hard on my answer so I'm posting it! I'm not going to miss an opportunity to yap about history.

So first, most of this is true! It's a summary of chapters 14-16 from The History of the World Christian Movement. An excellent book, if you enjoy reading textbooks. I have added the apocryphal story that Nicholas of Myra slapped an Arian, because I think it's funny. And, of course, Robert's Rules didn't exist at the time, I also thought that would be funny.

As for the date for Easter, yes, they did decree that Easter would be on a Sunday at Nicaea. You can read about this on the Catholic website New Advent if you don't trust me. It was certainly not settled by an earlier pope, because by the Council of Nicaea, papal primacy was not yet established. I assume you are referring to Pope Victor's decree for Rome that Easter be celebrated on a Sunday (New Advent). However, at this time (c.190), the Greek word παππάς (pappas; father) is in use for every bishop (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church). It doesn't indicate the primacy of the bishop of Rome, which is who Victor is at this time. His decree does not settle the issue for Syrians, who continue to observe Easter according to the Hebrew calendar (New Advent).

There's a long road to papal primacy, with supporters and detractors along the way. This is the second time someone has engaged with this post based on dominant Roman Catholic ideas of history, so what I really want to drive home is that there is much Christian history outside the history of the Roman Catholic church. Church history is much more diverse and nuanced than "this decree was issued and the matter was settled forever." One of the main things I've taken away from Christian History I is that there has always been a diversity of Christian belief and practice, much earlier than even I suspected!

This is important to me not because I think it invalidates modern belief, but because I think it illustrates something important about the work of the church. I don't bring this up or push back on Roman Catholic history as some potshot against Roman Catholics. The lineage of the papacy is still important to the Roman Catholic church and papal primacy rising through a process doesn't invalidate that. But it does show us that Christian doctrine arises through corporate work (as in, as a whole body) and changes over time. This is part of how God has ordered the church, part of how the Holy Spirit guides and forms us. Curiosity, questioning and discussion are sacred tasks set before the church, and we shouldn't flatten that historical work into a list of unilateral decrees.

In less than one week, we witnessed the massacre of well over 700 Palestinians by Israel.

During this time we also learned that 170 of them were children all killed within 50 minutes while they slept, and many of those who survived joined the ever growing number of child amputees in Gaza, cementing its position as the area with the highest number of child amputees per capita in the world.

We also saw videos of Palestinian families in Tulkarm in the occupied West Bank being forced out of their homes in mass displacement campaigns, and similarly saw heartbreaking scenes of hundreds of other families in Gaza who face the same fate.

It's a lot.

This is not a call of despair, and I refuse to let go of hope. But at this stage, it just feels almost futile to try to "keep people informed." One thing I had promised myself years, decades ago is to never stop talking about Palestine. But who am I talking to now? There's an abundance of reporting and documentation that everyone can access. The silence is a deliberate choice. What else should I do? Do I need to walk the streets and scream that Gazans are breaking their fast with only bread and water? Do I grab people by the shoulder and tell them that the Israeli cabinet had already approved a "voluntary transfer" plan for Gaza, which is word for word what they implemented during the Nakba? How do I know that anyone is listening and recognising that the map of the West Bank is forever changed with intensified and active campaigns of ethnic cleansing? I don't even think people fully realise how gruesome the first sentence in this post really is, when Palestinian suffering has become so normalised due to it being live-streamed for 17 months and counting.

It really is a lot. Palestinians are experiencing one of the darkest times in our history and navigating an immense amount of grief. The least you can do is to not allow yourself to get used to this.

praying for all the men around the world getting phallo, meta, and other forms of bottom surgery. may everything heal well and may they get results beyond all their wildest dreams 🤗

also praying for all the women out there getting vaginoplasty soon or who have neovagainas. god loves all of us and truly blessed us with the power to create the bodies our souls were destined for❣️

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.