The Wright/Ehrman and Jones/Hansen blogalogues

Posted by Helen on: 05.08.2008 /

I was interested to run across a couple of online dialogues between people with different beliefs last week.

NT Wright (Christian) and Bart Ehrman (agnostic) just completed a ‘blogalogue’ on Beliefnet called Is Our Pain God’s Problem?

I was encouraged to see each of them being friendly and respectful. I resonate more with Bart Ehrman’s comments which isn’t surprising given my own viewpoint (almost atheist).

I wish there had been one more response from Bart Ehrman so he could have answered this final question from NT Wright:

Why, granted your view of the world, should we bother? Why not ‘eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die,’ and thank our lucky stars that we can do so? The other side of the coin of ‘the problem of evil’ is, after all, ‘the problem of good’: if there is no God, no good and wise creator, why is there an impulse to justice and mercy so deep within us? Why is there beauty, love, laughter, friendship, joy? How do you then tell the difference between Ecclesiastes and Sartre? The Bible of course has some answers to those questions. But I’d be interested to hear yours.

Christianity Today is hosting an online conversation between Collin Hansen (Reformed Christian) and Tony Jones (Emergent Christian): Emergent’s New Christians and the Young Restless Reformed

So far four parts have been posted. As best I can tell it’s still ongoing. I like this question Tony Jones asked at the end of part four:

One more question for you: I’ve been reading some of the young, Reformed bloggers write about our conversation, and one sentiment has stood out. Several have written that my affirmation of God’s sovereignty, the inspiration of Scripture, and the Atonement is not good enough. “What does he really mean?” they ask. “I don’t think he really means what I mean!” So, I ask you, do you think that any affirmation of the historic, creedal beliefs of Christianity by an Emergent will be good enough for the young, restless Reformeds?

I’ll be interested to see how Collin responds to that.

Again I’m pleased to see friendly respectful dialog between two people whose beliefs differ significantly (even though they’re both Christians).

So often people talk with each other about those with different beliefs. That often results in misperceptions and wrong stereotypes being promoted on instead of corrected. When people talk with others who have different beliefs, they have the opportunity to correct misconceptions about themselves and learn which of their perceptions are wrong. It’s such a good idea. I wish more of it was taking place and I’m pleased to see it wherever it’s happening.

Semi-Related Posts

4 Responses to "The Wright/Ehrman and Jones/Hansen blogalogues"

  • Comment by: karen

    1 05/8/08 7:27 PM | Comment Link |

    What an interesting dialogue! Thanks for pointing it out, Helen.

    I’m always pimping this (long but) fascinating blogalogue between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris:
    http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

  • Comment by: Helen

    2 05/8/08 7:40 PM | Comment Link |

    Thanks for that link Karen - I didn’t know about that blogalogue!

  • Comment by: cipher

    3 05/10/08 1:36 PM | Comment Link |

    Hi Helen,

    I clicked on the links for both “conversations”. The first I looked at was Hansen and Jones. I saw the name John Piper, and I immediately closed the window. No, thank you. (”Young Calvinists” - the very expression fills me with despair.)

    I started to look at the exchange between Wright and Ehrman (I happen to rather like Ehrman), then I made the mistake of scrolling down to the comments. The grammar alone made me shudder. Of course, it was my own fault; you said that it was Christianity Today, yet I went in anyway. As my father would say, “that’ll teach me!”

    Anyway, I already know what Wright and Ehrman have to say. If I want to hear more from Ehrman, I’ll read his books. As far as Wright is concerned, it’s the same tired crap - “if there is no God, no good and wise creator, why is there an impulse to justice and mercy so deep within us”. In other words, “I feel it so deeply, and I so badly want it to be true, that it must be true.”

    Why do I bother? I know going in that it will only make me angry.

  • Comment by: Helen

    4 05/10/08 3:20 PM | Comment Link |

    cipher I like Ehrman too.

    I sometimes read things that I could have predicted would push my buttons. And then when they do I think, that probably wasn’t such a good idea.