Comments on: Student group Safe Space organizes silent protest in response to visiting theologian’s refusal to meet

By: Yasmiene Mabrouk

Yasmiene Mabrouk — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:27:10 +0000

"It is not using Romans 1 as a prooftext, but as part of the tightly woven fabric of Paul’s greatest letter, to say that he certainly regards same-sex genital behaviour as dehumanized and dehumanizing." "As the Lambeth voting figures made clear, there must be many first-world bishops on both sides of the Atlantic who are not hard line right-wingers, who are not ‘the usual suspects’ on every political issue that comes up, but who are heartland Episcopalians who know in their bones that the gay agenda is leading in the wrong direction and will quietly oppose it." "and Paul clearly sees homosexual behaviour as ultimately a form of human deconstruction." -From a speech NT Wright made and has posted on his website here: http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/communion-and-koinonia-pauline-reflections-on-tolerance-and-boundaries/

By: Matthew Cordella-Bontrager

Matthew Cordella-Bontrager — Fri, 07 Dec 2018 17:03:02 +0000

This article touts 91��Ƶ’s expertise in “dialogue and facilitation.” Yet the question posed to Wright effectively tars and feathers him with “hatred and discrimination” as the starting point for dialogue. What theory of dialogue licenses such a defamatory approach?

Safe Space essentially asks how Wright could reconcile himself to being an evildoer. Why should Wright, or anyone, respond to such a set-up question?

I’d like to see Wright’s “derogatory and dehumanizing” comments for myself, please. This article calls into question 91��Ƶ’s judgment — not simply about Christianity, which would be bad enough, but also about its own touted expertise in dialogue facilitation.