Jul 132017

Eugene Peterson affirms biblical marriage after all, according to this article.

“To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything,” he said in a statement Thursday afternoon.”

Based on my knowledge of Peterson, I suspected that the old sage had been blindsided by a reporter with an agenda.


This clarification won’t go far enough for some, especially those who “saw this coming” and spilled much ink and bile writing about it over the last 24 hours.

A long and illustrious career of serving the people of God has been sullied in the eyes of many.

As Swift once said; “falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it”…

We’ll miss you, Eugene…but you undoubtedly see the wisdom of retirement at this point…

  13 Responses to “Eugene Peterson Clarifies and Recants”

  1. Good job, Michael.

    I note the Religion News Service website still has no fewer than four direct or indirect references to their original Peterson interview from yesterday on their homepage. And no mention to the clarification.

    If that continues, or even if they do a NY Times version of a page 31 correction hidden under the Ziggy cartoon after a front page story, then that will speak volumes as to the degree of gay activist agenda for the publication and in the interview.

  2. A reporter with an agenda? Hardly.

    His interview with Peterson was published as a several part series, and was well done, every part of it. He asked questions, Peterson answered them. Pretty basic stuff. Did you bother reading about the interviewer? He’s actually not pro gay marriage, believes homosexuality actually is a sin, and would have no reason to sandbag Peterson. In fact, the two sat down four years ago for a lengthy interview in the fall of 2014, as well. This wasn’t some pot shot sandbag interview. These were two men sitting down and talking about a wide range of things as they have before.

  3. I am thankful for his clarification and take him at his word.

  4. Merritt’s own website speaks for itself.
    I realize that he has stated where he stands and I also take into account his own reporting.


  5. Perhaps his accountant called. 😉

  6. Good. This small crisis may be done… but the larger crisis in in the Church still looms large and we will still have to struggle with it in terms of contemporary culture.

  7. I am glad for the retraction. Peterson also gives the impression over these past 2 days that he doesn’t seem very firm in his own mind on the issue. It is rather confusing.

    I’m not a culture warrior on gay marriage and I do think segments of the church spend too much time focusing on the issue (although it is sometimes understandable as much as the culture pushes things that way). And I’m not a pastor, but if I were, I just can’t see a scenario where someone would ask me if I would be willing to do a same-sex marriage and I would somehow end up saying yes even though I believed otherwise. It’s hard to see how someone says yes to the question when they don’t really mean it, unless there is significant uncertainty in their own mind.

    But I’m glad Peterson retracted and hope he stays there and there is no more drama on this situation.

  8. “When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who “seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,” I meant it. But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior. It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth.

    There have been gay people in a variety of congregations, campuses, and communities where I have served. My responsibility to them was the work of a pastor—to visit them, to care for their souls, to pray for them, to preach the Scriptures for them.

    This work of pastoring is extremely and essentially local: Each pastor is responsible to a particular people, a specific congregation. We often lose sight of that in an atmosphere so clouded by controversy and cluttered with loud voices. The people of a congregation are not abstractions, they are people, and a pastor does a disservice to the people in his care when he indulges in treating them as abstractions.

    I regret the confusion and bombast that this interview has fostered. It has never been my intention to participate in the kind of lightless heat that such abstract, hypothetical comments and conversations generate. This is why, as I mentioned during this interview, I so prefer letters and will concentrate in this final season on personal correspondence over public statements.”

  9. “Eugene Peterson clarifies and recants”

    More like, Eugene Peterson saw all the money to be lost selling garbage and heresies to a bunch of undiscerning “Christians”

  10. All the money to be lost? Perhaps he saw how little depth of understanding or willingness to understand correctly or even how confusing words can be…
    Or maybe even he saw that his own conclusions were moving into duplicity…
    Maybe we might simply rejoice in truth and quit the psychoanalysis that only God is able to do … The One Who searches hearts, the only One Who does so with accuracy … ?… dunno. 😎

  11. Amen to Em’s comment at 2:43pm. (Sorry, my view doesn’t number the comments.)

  12. No doubt this whole confusion is another matter of Russian collusion

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



%d bloggers like this: