Calvin Robinson & Robyn Henderson-Espinoza: Has woke theology gone too far? - YouTube
By: YouTube
Anti-woke Anglican ordinand Calvin Robinson engages with Transqueer Latinx theologian Dr Robyn Henderson-Espinoza on whether 'woke' theology is creating a mo...
This video is very useful, and very long. For myself, I got i through it by upping the "speed" in (wheel) 
setting. It reminds me of a recent 'discussion' I had with an NT member that went 'nowhere.' But, here is the topic and the message.
I hope you join and tell me what you think about any small or large part of it. Cheers.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
Is [your church name here] 'woke' or 'slayed'? Listen in and tell us about it! No church name? Listen in anyway it's therapeutic!
Wake up, America!
I think Calvin was consistent. Seek what is holy. Adjust your actions to conform with what is holy and righteous, don't adjust what is holy and righteous to conform with your actions. That has troubled churches throughout history, and is not limited to "being woke."
Your reply is a good delineation of the issue. However, in the nuance 'field' we find we have to reconcile what people can do in a Christian 'walk' and what they can't do for themselves on the 'journey' through this life. That is, after receiving the filling of the Spirit: what then? Shall all of life 'mellow-out' before you? Is that really true?
There are life applications involved every day that "Jesus delays returning. . . . "
Right, people can seek what is holy and righteous. Jesus told the hooker to go and sin no more. He didn't tell her to go do what feels good, keep doing what you're doing, or to conform the truth to what she was doing. He told her to stop sinning.
Is that what you 'heard' me say?
Is what is holy and righteous clear and attainable in this life?
Did Jesus declare by faith those who are holy and righteous, because their sins have been forgiven and will continually be forgiven? '
I can detect that I have have not dealt with your 'concern' @3.1.1. No, I am not encouraging followers of Jesus Christ to continue to live in sin. What I am about has two parts:
1. The Christian believer has 'put his or her hand to the plow' to follow Jesus. It is this believer who has to consider the cost before 'inking' the contract spiritually. The 'world of unbelievers' have not taken up a vow to self, nor made public confession to follow after Jesus or any New Testament doctrine or creed.
2. Additionally, living "holy" does not put any of us in a sealed vault where we do not come into contact with the world and its trials, tribulations, and yes temptations. So we do our best to walk in Spirit. Let's be clear, the longer one's lifetime, the longer reality one comes to accept and appreciate.
3. Finally, understanding 1 and 2 above, means believers must seek to do all the scriptures to the best of their abilities, while boldly trusting God to aid in the process, and to love others to the 'upmost' as much as it lies within each of us to do.
I think you are reading too much into my comment CB. You asked the question as to how to reconcile what Christians can do. The marching orders are to seek what is holy and righteous.
Jesus declared that, if left to our own devices, we would all die, that we are not righteous. Continual forgiveness is one of the areas of debate among different churches. More on that in about 30.
Not trying to overstate the point, but that is what I wrote in part @3.1.
Because living to a ripe old age as a believer will take anybody on a wide course of behaviors, phases of life, and even maturity in the Word. That is, experiences lived will 'interpret' how I, you, we, discern or interpret the scriptures. That is, none of us can live our present life similar to B.C. Jerusalem or Israel - the experiences are by design different. So we bring our understanding up to date.
Again, we are just feeling out the subject matter, because we have not really 'spoken' on this topic together.
Nice sharing with you.
While I do agree that experiences will influence or give additional meaning to our reading, I don't think the base message is so nuanced that it takes a lifetime to discern the truth. To the contrary, the truth is easily discernible, and straight forward.
Is what is holy and righteous clear? For the most part, yes. There are multiple instances where an act is specifically identified as sin.
Instead of peering through the bushes, at the local honeys bathing in the water hole, as the fellas back in Jerusalem might have had to do it, we can whip out out cell phone. Lust hasn't changed in the past 2000 years. The story of Cane and Able may have been different if you introduce a gun as the weapon, but murder then is the same as murder now. Jacob deceiving Isaac to gain advantage over Esau. Jospeh's brothers becoming envious of him, harboring hate for him, and selling him off as a slave. David sending Uriah off to the front line to be killed, so that his affair with Bathsheba could be hidden. Motivation is the same as now, execution may be different.
I am speaking in regards to practical experience. All of us on our faith 'journey' encounter moments when we can say, "Now I understand this!" Or, as we mature began to see the depths of who we are to be in faith. That is, not all of our faith walk will be all smiles and such. There are numerous places where our minds must come down out of the 'blue' and deal with those areas where 'rubber meets the road.'
This is where a believer see what s/he are to be for the long-haul of living out faithfulness.
Since this is more or less a first 'encounter' of Christian attitudes between us; do specify what truth you have in mind, please. It may save us both some time.
Let me be clear, I am not suggesting a Christian live in ways s/he considers or has committed to knowing is sin. What I do state is God is the Supplier (gives the increase) and thus, can not expect any of us 'fleshly' beings to ordeal over-long without Spirit advocacy. We advance, or fail to advance, spiritually on the basis of Spirit 'power' in our individual situations.
For example, God can grant Spiritual power to a 'third' sex, the Transgendered, to begin and continue a faith journey in Jesus Christ. And yet, that is something hard to fathom and 'impossible' to write about in the teaching of the early church age. It is for today's churches to 'work out' how it will be managed based on the totality of the New Testament writers. It usually takes the form of walking in love and keeping peace with all men.
Been away for a minute.
I'm not going to go through them all, but Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of express examples, that are clearly and unambiguously identified as sin. Not only sin, but expressly detestable. These things are expressed throughout the bible. If a person is missing the import, it is because they are doing what Calvin is cautioning against, conforming the Bible to their actions.
Don't like old testament examples? Then you don't like the new testament either. Jesus advised that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus referenced the law several times. So, it's still applicable. Jesus was the remedy for man's continual violation of the law
The notion that we can somehow live under different umbrellas or church roofs is inconsistent with the bible. "Liberal" and "conservative" Christians live by the same rules. That is the truth. That doesn't mean that the two have to be at odds though. I'm not asserting that a woman or man cannot naturally have sexual impulses or desire for a person of the same sex. The Bible, see Leviticus and Deuteronomy, lump same sex relations in the same class as adultery. Jesus said that lusting after a woman is the same as committing adultery with her.
Could God create a third sex, or condone certain behavior? Subscribing to that thought is inconsistent with the Bible, as God doesn't change. You can find examples of God relenting on punishment, but changing his character?
Many want to argue that, because I have natural impulses, it must not be sinful; or, that God created me this way, so it must not be sinful. In 1 Corinthians, we are told that no temptation has seized you, except what is common to man. We are told throughout that we have a sinful nature. As such, it should come as no surprise that natural impulses may be sinful. So, a straight man lusting over a woman is no different than a gay man lusting over a man. Both may have natural impulses, but it doesn't make either right.
I think people want conflict between the groups, or would like to see Calvin condemn Robyn, simply for the sake of their being conflict or controversy. He doesn't, because I think he is coming at this from a place you and I both agree, love. He is looking first to remove the log from his own eye, before worrying about the speck in his brother's. His message of love? Be careful not to pervert the teachings of the Bible to fit your own narrative. Simple. Similar to Paul's writings to the Corinthians.
Paul is not holding himself above anyone, but pointing out that he endures against the same sinful impulses, and is encouraging his readers to do the same. He also throws in there the answer to the question of "why won't God simply remove the impulses." His grace is sufficient.
The truth is that we all labor under the burden of sin, and that we are saved by grace alone.
Welcome!
This statement is superfluous. I hope you realize this. Because, the aforementioned is a given. I point this out because that sentence and its surrounding paragraph both are doing too much 'work' when taken in context of the whole comment; it is attempting to compound a larger point on a theme (same sex relations?) you are presenting.
I would like an opinion from you on this verse:
Please explain what the underlined sentence portions say to you.
For the sake of clarity, was Jesus' and especially Paul's actions which led to the start of a cult that fell away from orthodox Judaism and became its own (unto Jesus) world-wide religion of faith a . . . 'conforming' action?
I seriously ask this.
To be clear, we must not abuse the 'character' of God by suggesting we can know the entire scope of what God is. That is, Judaism did not see the character of God that would allow for the 'day' of Jesus, and so he was properly and 'promptly crucified by the Romans at the request of God's chosen people. Those to whom the laws of Moses and the understanding of God derived did not 'See' Jesus and as orthodox Jews, do not 'see' Jesus as "the anointed king" even today.
What does it say to you about the character of God that such a mistake in judgement could occur?
I'm not presenting a theme. That's quite literally a theme presented in the discussion. Superfluous? Had I simply stated "lust is lust", it ignores the point that the question presented here is whether or not presenting a 'woke' theology is creating a more inclusive faith or a dangerous diversion from historic Christianity. This is the point in the discussion where Robyn and Calvin really diverge. Robyn? Lived experiences, preferred orientation should guide you, but be safe. Calvin? Sex outside of marriage isn't in line with biblical teachings.
(through Jesus) Those who believe are justified. Something unobtainable under the laws of Moses. Not unobtainable because Jesus destroyed the law. Unobtainable because even following the law, to the best of one's ability, would not result in one being righteous.
I wouldn't call it a cult. Whether or not it is a conforming action is debatable, especially between Jews and Christians. Clearly, the Jewish community views Christianity as a departure. Christians, on the other hand, see this as consistent.
New International Version
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.
New Living Translation
Everyone who believes in him is made right in God’s sight—something the law of Moses could never do.
English Standard Version
and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.
Berean Study Bible
Through Him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.
Berean Literal Bible
And in Him everyone believing is justified from all things from which you were not able to be justified in the Law of Moses.
King James Bible
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
New King James Version
and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
New American Standard Bible
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
NASB 1995
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
NASB 1977
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
Amplified Bible
and through Him everyone who believes [who acknowledges Jesus as Lord and Savior and follows Him] is justified and declared free of guilt from all things, from which you could not be justified and freed of guilt through the Law of Moses.
This verse deals with the acceptability of the individual before God. It is saying that if we don't simply accept Jesus as savior but also follow in the life that he lived, we are no longer held accountable for our own personal sins, since Jesus paid the price for them. This is something the law could not do but, instead, is what condemned us to begin with.
What the verse is not saying is that we are free from the law. That is, not in the sense that all things have become clean for us. It is not the case that, before being saved, certain acts or thoughts condemned us and then, after being saved, we can now continue in those same acts and thoughts without concern because of that salvation.
What makes the believer acceptable to God concerning this is our confession of our sin and rebellion against God, acceptance of Christ as savior and the acknowledgement that we now pursue God in holiness. That is the point of salvation, not making the desires of the sinful heart okay.
Mistake in judgment by whom? And, what mistake? Your question assumes a mistake. From my understanding, that was the plan. God was not mistaken, as Jesus' crucifixion was the fulfillment of the plan. The Jews that chose not to have Jesus freed did not make a mistake. The Pharisees were not mistaken. I don't know that I have seen the events of the crucifixion characterized as a mistake in the Bible.
I'm not purporting to understand the full depth of what God is. I just don't see in the text where God changes his character. Feel free to point me to a passage, showing such, and I'll review it.
Why are all your fonts different? I seriously ask this.
I seriously hope you don't get an answer.
HA! You 'master' of distraction, you! My fonts are different, and I have been 'tortuously' delivering them for years now in every comment on NT. I am always looking for the the 'perfect' manner of communicating across this spectrum. To catch eye and temperament of the reader. Hope that helps.
Have I 'succeeded' in creating a 'formula'? Not yet, so experimentation continues. . . .
It's okay, Hallux! It is an observation and personally, I think 'sans-serif' is bland! (But, I have kept that to myself for a very, very, long time.)
Perhaps it was better unasked,
I’m sorry if I distracted you.
I've never doubted your seriousness.
I can see how that last sentence, being detached, could read differently and without its proper context. Now, that you have asked a set of questions about it. Consequently, I put them together to form one 'thought.' That thought:
Human writers—"God's secretaries," prophets and priestly class, penned the Bible in bits and pieces over many generations, each time adding nominally a concept as to the character of God. These men, writers, were steeped in the meanings of the 'book,' because it is they who were distilling the message content, and still those trained in the law did not recognize the Christ (lifted from their labors) in his advent.
You might say to me that the character of God, in turning from the law to the gospel was in original plan and I would agree. But, the issue becomes this:
Why didn't Jewish priests not recognize god's essence in Jesus, when Jewish writers are the principal writers and commentators of those 'books' on God ('s character)?
Did God change? Or did the writers simply not 'move' in their thinking to this 'new' thing God was doing?
It is a conforming action in that while the Jewish leaders 'won' the battle of temple worship, they did not win this feat of encompassing souls. That is, Christianity swept across the world. And becomes in large part a sustainer of Judaism.
Thank you for your answer. . .and thank you for your patience. Actually, I had to find time to go back and familiarize myself with the multifaceted discussion taking place in the video and got to your point around forty-three minutes in. So, I see your point. And in my own life as a celibate person, I do not fornicate. That is, have sex outside of a proper (opposite or same-sex marriage) .
But Robyn, and it is not clear to me from the discussion, could be talking about a difference in church settings: That is, there are primary gay churches in the United States for example: FIRST GAY CHURCH OF GOD in Los Angeles. I, myself, have never attended to a 'gay-first' church anywhere in the world. Moreover, I do not set in the pews and fellowship with conservative Christians.
The two types of churches could be what Robyn means. For instance, Robyn's heavy credentials could/should lead him to a career in ministry and leadership and. . . that won't be the conservative church model.
Now then, who is to say that the model of the 'Gay' church is wrong, per se? Remember Jesus said this:
After all, the question falls in the category: Christian liberty. And ultimately, it is God who judges and determines whether or not to provide the increase, right?
Striking this note, I am not even suggesting that it is our 'role' as the Church to steward matters beyond our 'bounds.' I come down on the side of the church limiting its role to what they can do while maintaining a god-driven 'mandate' to show love and not harm such as Robyn alludes to coming out of the churches currently.
Ultimately, God can change the heart of a trans-person (a 'third-sex') and save that soul as often as God can save me or anybody. For we do say and believe nothing is impossible for God. Do you, we, believe this?
Hi Drakkonis, first, I have not ignored your comment, but as I stated to Trans. Rex I have been 'occupied' up to now and needed to review the video attached to this article before continuing.
Second, my 'case' as it is, is not that men and women should go on sinning against God. And, as much as I wish to avoid starting off with "devil's advocate" approach to discussion with you my spirit is telling me to clarify a biblical 'statement' before proceeding further. If you will, what do you say about this:
I do not see a requirement that so-callled, liberal Christians and so-called, conservative Christians should have to be 'housed' under the same church roof!
What I propose is this: In our country, a diverse home for religious and irreligious people groups, all can continue to find camaraderie and peace with one another in this life. There is no requirement that religious people conform or succumb to one another's points of view.
Or that religious people should wage spirited 'campaigns' against the irreligious.
Apart from religion in this country we have a constitution for all people to follow. We all must follow the constitution.
There is a conference happening tomorrow May 14, 2022 on Unbelievable live. And it's online and free! Now then, I am not a promoter of such things, but this host of Unbelievable is so 'amenable' to his guests of all persuasions that I personally think I will like to 'sit-in' online and lend my support. What about you? Again, it's online and free!
⇢ www.unbelievable.live
Try this link instead of the other (which is 'broken') :
What I really love about this religious space held by this host is how easy-flowing discussion can be while accomplishing great things in communication and sharing across diverse religious and social 'platforms.'