judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “union”

Making Sure Children Actually Hear the Gospel and Not Just a Bunch of Bible Stories

This is from anglicansablaze.blogspot.com which you can find here:

We must not only teach children the stories of Scripture. We must teach them the Story of Scripture.

Children have a faith that is ready to go. Let’s not waste that opportunity by delivering a humanistic Gospel.

We talk a lot about contextualization Gospel communication. How do we share the eternal truth of God in specific locations for specific people who have a specific shared experience?

The Gospel does not change. So the message should remain the same, even as the methods are adjusted for effectiveness.

But how well do we proclaim the Gospel to children? I’m not asking how well we teach children Bible stories, or how well we have taught the moral truths of Scripture.

Are we contextualizing our Gospel communication for children as well as we are for the hipsters in Brooklyn or the tribes in Tanzania? ”

You can learn more about this issue here.

The Incarnation: Its Relevance

This is from anglicansablaze.blogspot.com which you can find here:

“To call the incarnation “relevant” almost sounds patronizing. But we need to recognize the intimate connection between this important doctrine and personal piety.”

You can learn more about this issue here.

Scalia’s Prophecy Fulfilled (Sub Silentio)

This post is from Anglican Curmudgeon which you can find here.

An excerpt of the Anglican Curmudgeon post is as follows: “Sub silentio (literally, “under [the cloak of] silence”) is a legal term of art for the technique of a court that, say, wants to accomplish something like the overruling of an earlier case — without having to admit in express words what it is doing. For whatever political or collegial considerations prevail at the moment, the court finds it more “convenient” to stop short of saying what it is doing, while doing it nonetheless. Then, either a few (or even many) years later, the court can “discover”, say, that the case of W. vs. X was in fact overruled, sub silentio, by the case of Y vs. Z.

Courts also understandably shy away from overturning their own prior decisions. As Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter noted in declining to overrule Roe v. Wade in the later case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 844, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992), ‘Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.”’

You can learn more about this issue here.

Post Navigation