Rev. Dr. Jo Hudson on Larry King Tonight! 6/15

[NathanATX]

Exciting News!!!!

The Senior Pastor of The Cathedral Of Hope here in Dallas, Rev. Dr. Jo
Hudson, will be on "Larry King Live" on CNN tonight, Thursday, June
15, 2006. The show airs "live" at 8pm central time here in Dallas and
repeats again at 11pm.

The producers of the "Larry King Live" show had read a recently
published article about Rev. Hudson in USA TODAY and asked her to appear on the show.

The following link will take you to the article on the USA TODAY
website: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...s-hudson_x.htm.

Rev. Hudson will be flying to Los Angeles today (Thursday) to appear
on Larry King's show, so by the time most of you read this e-mail, the
show will be just a few hours away.

Since this is short notice, please pass this e-mail on to other
ministers and members of your churches & organizations who you have on your e-mail distribution lists.

Be sure to set your Tvio's and VCR's as well.

[Rick336]

Thanks for the tip Nathan. I will tune in.

Rick

[Jamie McDaniel]

I'm watching it right now.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Given enough interview time, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, will always say something very disturbing.

Just now Andrew Sullivan noted that the Leviticus passage demands the death penalty for homosexuals. The conservative Catholic representing an anti-gay view added that, yes, there are lots of disturbing passages in Leviticus and Deutormony that he struggles with such as those that require the stoning of disobedient children.

So Al Mohler chimes in and says that those passages were meant for the Israel Theocracy, and that today we are New Testament Christians. Instead of leaving it at that he then adds that if we were back in the Israel theocracy, then yes, we would need to carry out those executions.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

So Al Mohler chimes in and says that those passages were meant for the Israel Theocracy, and that today we are New Testament Christians. Instead of leaving it at that he then adds that if we were back in the Israel theocracy, then yes, we would need to carry out those executions.

Nope, no moral relativism there.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

So Al Mohler chimes in and says that those passages were meant for the Israel Theocracy, and that today we are New Testament Christians. Instead of leaving it at that he then adds that if we were back in the Israel theocracy, then yes, we would need to carry out those executions.

I wanted to make sure I had understood what Mohler had said. I checked the transcript once it was released. Al Mohler didn't use the cold phrase "we would need to carry out those executions." That was my interpretation of him. His words were:

Originally Posted by Al Mohler on Larry King Live

The old testament text you mentioned were addressed to the ancient theocracy of Israel. If we were the ancient theocracy of Israel, we would be obligated to those texts, but we are Christians here talking about the church in the new testament...

That is a much more "correct" way to condemn homosexuals as it conveniently puts the blame back on God for demanding our deaths anyway.

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death, their blood will be on their own heads.

Scary when you think that the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.

[Steven E. Webster]

Mohler is obviously displaying the Fundamentalist fixation on the "plain meaning" of the text , and the belief that we must obey the text no matter what. This is what I would call Bibliolatry (making the Bible a false idol) or treating the Bible as a paper pope.

Mohler fails to recognize that Jesus and his other New Testament followers were doing what Rabbis have always done, they were constantly interpreting (and yes, modifying their understanding of) the texts which they received.

Steven Webster

[nowvoyager]

I am pleased to say that I was able to view the show here in Australia, too, and as I am a devotee of Andrew Sullivan's blog I was eager to see the man speak live. I appreciated his pointing out that even those claiming bible inerrancy appear to pick and choose which scriptures to obey (of course, otherwise there'd be stonings all over the place..), and I didn't think the more conservative panel members refuted this well. I was also glad that Andrew reached out to young people listening - as certainly hearing Al Mohler's words could be poison to a vulnerable listener's soul.
As indeed hearing Andrew and Bishop Gene and Rev Hudson was a balm to mine.

[Emproph]

Those were his ending words. (I caught the 2nd replay.)

Wow, that was spectacular, I was proud. It was a good debate, even tempered, and I found it to be decidedly overly humble on the parts of Bishop Robinson, Reverend Jo Hudson, and Andrew Sullivan ("our guys"). I was impressed with all three of them in particular, it was almost like 3 against 2 and a half though cuz the guy in the studio was like an ‘independent.’

They won hands down, and they weren’t just nicer either. By carefully and consciously not drawing lines of any kind they made a stronger distinction between the meaning of Love and the meaning of “God.” Only one of those meanings (Love) necessarily includes the magnitude of the meaning of the other. It was pronounced for me.

The lines were genuinely clear, without gratuitous emotion, political rhetoric, slander etc., and I think they got to the meat of the issues too.
Andrew brought up the Leviticus stoning yay/nay issue
Hudson brought up the ambiguity of Biblical translation
Bishop Robinson humbly and repeatedly allowed God/Love to speak through him. (No wonder he's a famous bishop.. )

IMPO I take away a strong 66% ‘fer’ on this one. (IMPO: In My Political Opinion..)
Strong because I found it’s sense of ideal to be lasting. The “ideals” on “both” sides of the issue I found to be strikingly different. It was validating.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

That is a much more "correct" way to condemn homosexuals as it conveniently puts the blame back on God for demanding our deaths anyway.

I agree, that makes much more sense. Unchanging God is the one who's morally relative. Good thing for Mohler’s clarification on that.

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Mohler is obviously displaying the Fundamentalist fixation on the "plain meaning" of the text , and the belief that we must obey the text no matter what. This is what I would call Bibliolatry (making the Bible a false idol) or treating the Bible as a paper pope.

As long as God is not defined as Love, sin need not be defined as evil.

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Mohler fails to recognize that Jesus and his other New Testament followers were doing what Rabbis have always done, they were constantly interpreting (and yes, modifying their understanding of) the texts which they received.

And the tell tale sign of that kind of scriptural idolatry is the constant and selective re-interpreting of “must obey,” as in, shall I love my neighbor or shall I partially obey levitican law?

Originally Posted by nowvoyager

I am pleased to say that I was able to view the show here in Australia, too, and as I am a devotee of Andrew Sullivan's blog I was eager to see the man speak live. I appreciated his pointing out that even those claiming bible inerrancy appear to pick and choose which scriptures to obey (of course, otherwise there'd be stonings all over the place..), and I didn't think the more conservative panel members refuted this well. I was also glad that Andrew reached out to young people listening - as certainly hearing Al Mohler's words could be poison to a vulnerable listener's soul.
As indeed hearing Andrew and Bishop Gene and Rev Hudson was a balm to mine.

I see Andrew Sullivan from time to time on different shows and read bits and pieces on the internet, but I was especially impressed with the content and tone of this 'performance.'