Nick Roen examines this progressive argument:
The argument, as fairly as I can put it, goes like this: The progressive interpretation of the Bible’s sexual ethic bears good fruit in people’s lives. Progressives claim that affirming same-sex marriage and monogamous same-sex relationships produces the good fruit of love, relational care, intimacy, and a hundred other benefits. The historic interpretation, they say, does not produce any of these things; rather, it often bears the bad fruit of pain, discouragement, and even despair.
Affirming theology gives. Non-affirming theology only withholds. That is the argument.
It’s true that historic biblical interpretation teaches that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4–5), and that “men who have sex with men” is a sin listed alongside drunkenness, greed, and slander as worthy of exclusion from God’s kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). So, the traditional sexual ethic does restrict in a way the progressive ethic does not.
But does this necessarily lead to bad fruit? And do progressive interpretations have a corner on good fruit? Far from it. Consider three counterarguments to the progressive claim that the traditional ethic produces bad fruit.
From Bleacher Report:
Former St. Louis Cardinals and Cleveland Indians pitcher Anthony Reyes is now a Los Angeles County firefighter.
Reyes pitched for the Cardinals and Indians from 2005 to 2009 and finished with a 5.12 ERA and 1.377 WHIP in 293.1 innings.
He is best known for his performance in the 2006 World Series when he led the Cardinals to a Game 1 victory over Justin Verlander and the Detroit Tigers by allowing just two earned runs and four hits in eight innings of work.
For Jernica Quiñones, the reality of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, hit close to home this year when a friend woke up on New Year’s Day and discovered the lifeless body of her baby girl.
That’s why Quiñones’ 4-month-old son, Bless’n, has spent a lot of his life so far sleeping in a cardboard box.
The 33-year-old mother of five took part in a program in New Jersey that promotes safe sleep education through the distribution of “baby boxes” that double as bassinets.
“Some mothers can’t buy a Pack-n-Play or a crib,” Quiñones says. And that can lead to bed sharing, a risk factor for SIDS.
The program is a riff on Finland’s well-known baby box, or maternity package, which the government gives to expectant mothers who get a prenatal checkup: It’s the box, plus clothing, blankets and other supplies.
Now that Finnish model is making inroads in the U.S., but with a twist. Instead of being a prenatal incentive, it’s being used to deliver a postpartum safe sleep message.
God help us.
Moving forward with a campaign pledge to unravel former President Obama’s sweeping plan to curb global warming, President Trump on Tuesday is set to sign an executive order that will suspend, rescind or flag for review more than a half-dozen measures in an effort to boost domestic energy production in the form of fossil fuels.
As part of the roll-back, Trump will initiate a review of the Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants.
The regulation, which was the former president’s signature effort to curb carbon emissions, has been the subject of long-running legal challenges by Republican-led states and those who profit from burning oil, coal and gas.
Trump, who has called global warming a “hoax” invented by the Chinese, has repeatedly criticized the power-plant rule and others as an attack on American workers and the struggling U.S. coal industry. The contents of the order were outlined to reporters in a sometimes tense briefing with a senior White House official, whom aides insisted speak without attribution, despite Trump’s criticism of the use of unnamed sources.
The official at one point appeared to break with mainstream climate science, denying familiarity with widely publicized concerns about the potential adverse economic impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels and more extreme weather.
Now to the trivial, but still fun:
PHOENIX — In the year’s second franchise move valuing facilities over fans, NFL owners voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a move of the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas for the 2020 season.
“OAK-land RAI-ders” chants from desperately hopeful fans serenaded owners around the posh Arizona Biltmore complex, but to no avail. The vote was 31-1, with Miami owner Stephen Ross the only negative voter. He was reportedly concerned about the drop in market size from sixth (the Oakland/San Francisco market) to 40th (Las Vegas). But in the end, an avalanche of owners felt the fact that more than half of the $1.7-billion stadium would be publicly funded was too big an advantage to pass up.
But this isn’t going to be easy. They won’t be the “Las Vegas Raiders” until they leave Oakland. Commissioner Roger Goodell said the team would remain the Oakland Raiders for at least two more years, while the new stadium is being built just off the Strip in Las Vegas. And the Raiders, as of today, do not have a scheduled home for 2019 and may be forced to play in Vegas’s 35,500-seat Sam Boyd Stadium, home of UNLV (and currently not suited for NFL games) while the new place is being finished.