Shared posts

28 Jun 12:19

When I’m Told I Cannot Call Myself Christian

by KristaDalton

My day started in a whirlwind. First in a flurry of construction and chaos, I spent hours wandering Columbia’s campus attempting to finish all my registration materials for the fall and conquer the vast wasteland of Butler library. Anyone who has visited my new campus can appreciate the gravity of these goals; Columbia is known for neither efficiency nor usability.

Thus, in my disoriented state I rushed to Hamilton Hall with time to spare before my Attic Greek class began, breathing a flustered sigh as I sat next to my classmate to await our instructor’s arrival.

If only the story of my confounding day could end here.

What started as an innocent conversation with my classmate erupted into a tailspin of accusations, confusion, and disapproval.  I was ambushed by fundamentalism.

“You said you study Judaism and Christianity, but you’re not Jewish, so are you a Christian?”

“Yeah sure”

Here is when I should have backed away slowly. I hate answering that question “are you a Christian?” to strangers because I never know what images or ideas they will associate me with. Yes I am a Christian, but some people wouldn’t consider me a Christian, but I call myself a Christian, but I’m not like some Christians…how does one answer a simple question with a simple answer?

“So how does supersessionism influence your Jewish studies research?”

“Supersessionism? That theology needs to disappear from Christian rhetoric.”

“What?! How can you call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in supersessionism?”

This is when I knew my already long day was about to get a bit longer. Soon there ensued a barrage of accusing questions,

“But what about what St. Paul says?” “Do you even believe “homosexuals” are Christians?” “How do you interpret Leviticus and St. Paul?” “What about St. Paul?!”

And then the final blow,

“Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Personal Savior?”

Those words sent a rush of panic clawing at my throat. I was transported back to my childhood Sunday School classes, where my answer to that question dictated which side of my teacher’s illustration I would go— to the fiery dark hell on the left or the golden heaven on the right. The barrage of questions had made my head spin; already off my game from a long day of dealing with campus bureaucracy, I had plopped down next to my classmate unprepared to have my salvation judged. I tried to deconstruct the question, but my classmate just smirked and shook his head saying, “You can’t call yourself a Christian.”

I’m not sure I can convey the pain those words caused. I had just written a post last week entitled, “Dear Church, I’m Sorry I Can’t Trust You,” and here again I was being violated.

I am describing this event to you because it is actually a well worn story. Conversations like this have happened to me many times, and they happen to many of you. This isn’t just my story; it belongs to many who find themselves in an ambiguous relationship with Christianity.  And I think we as the Church can do better.

First, we can stop defining Christianity as an effortless checklist of Accept Believe Confess.

I hate to spoil anyone’s thunder, but Christianity is more than a few beliefs. The history of Christianity is complex, varied, encompassing a vast array of perspectives and practices. Christianity is just as much about practice as it is about belief, and failing to check mark a belief does not negate a life of practice. When my classmate was reading St. Paul, he should have compared his texts to James; the issue of belief, faith, and practice is far from simple. We must make room for the various shades of belief.

Second, we can ask better questions. 

If I had answered my classmate’s final question with “I’m not sure” or even worse “no,” would that suddenly dissolve my identification as a Christian? When we ask pointed questions, usually with one implied “right” answer, what are we hoping to accomplish? Instead, when we inquire about another person’s religious practice, we can ask insightful questions that hope to discover the other person’s perspective. And we can be prepared to listen.

Simply quoting “St. Paul” will not sustain the Church. Simply asking trite questions on our checklist will not save anyone.

So what do we do when someone says, “You can’t call yourself a Christian?” Personally, I took to Twitter where I knew I had a community of people who understood and supported me. Twitter responded with a flood of humorous and encouraging tweets:

lane severson ‏@ljseverson: “I’m telling ABBA!” (sorry that was so lame. I’m going to lock myself in the basement now.)
Bruce Reyes-Chow ‏@breyeschow: To be fair I have a hard time seeing how anyone can call themselves a Christian and root for the Yankees. #justkidding #sorta
Keegan Osinski ‏@keegzzz:  Tell them I’m a grown-ass woman and I can call myself whatever I damn well please!
Ryan Robinson ‏@Ryan_LR: I typically try to just laugh and move on without arguing. Sometimes it is easier than others.
Justin Boulmay ‏@JustinBoulmay@Ryan_LR Or you pull out your Bible and say dramatically, “Could a real Christian hold this without CATCHING ON FIRE?!!!”
Wesley Robinson ‏@grandpawes: Tell them Bullshit. :) Honestly trying to follow Jesus is all it takes to get on that path. Boom. #getoutofmyface
Mandy Meisenheimer ‏@mandymeis: My response is Meh. No one is considered a Christian by everybody. The word has infinite interpretations.
Thomas Whitley ‏@thomaswhitley:  I usually reiterate that there is no such thing as “Christianity,” only people offering definitions of the thing
Jes Kast-Keat ‏@JesKastKeat: It’s infuriating when someone says you can’t call yourself ___ because you don’t fit the mold of what a ___ looks/acts like.
Stephanie Drury—SCCL ‏@StuffCCLikes:  I never answer that question anymore because it never fosters relationship, just gives them a category to file me under

As hurtful as conversations like the one with my classmate are, I’m reminded that I’m not alone. Instead of being defeated and walking away from the Church, I will fight to ensure there is space in the Christian community for people like me who can’t answer those questions or match certain beliefs so easily. I’m not giving up the label without a fight.

 

28 Jun 01:10

Brian Rosner’s Leon Morris Lecture Available On-line

by Michael F. Bird
Brian Rosner delivered the first annual Leon Morris Lecture on NT studies this week. It was on “Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God.” I’m glad to say that it is now available in audio. Brian has good some great ideas on the law as wisdom and prophecy.
27 Jun 14:53

Cosmic Awe [Starts With A Bang]

by Ethan

“…the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” -Carl Sagan

As many of you know, I’m fortunate enough to live in a city that values science and scientific knowledge so highly that the our local news station, KGW, routinely brings on scientists to talk about the lastest developments in our endeavors to understand the Universe around us. Just last week, I was invited to share five wonderful minutes of airtime with the viewers of not just Portland, OR, but (thanks to the web) all over the globe.

But what you won’t see in this clip was what happened during the commercial break, leading up to this segment, which is why host Joe Donlon and I were mid-conversation when the clip started. He asked me about what I had studied in graduate school, and so I started to describe, well, the physical Universe, from the hot Big Bang to how it cooled, expanded, and evolved into the Universe we’re fortunate enough to inhabit today.
Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

What he said to me after that was something that I’ve heard often, but that I’ve never addressed here. He said to me,

You know, I can’t really think about something like that for too long. It makes my head hurt, and it starts to freak me out a little bit.

It’s a sentiment that is far from universal, but one that I think I understand, because when I think about it, I freak out, too.

Image credit: VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at ESO’s Paranal Observatory.

Image credit: VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at ESO’s Paranal Observatory.

It’s part of what drew me to this field in the first place, honestly. We are born into this world barely aware of what we are, and completely unaware of the size, scope, and history of the Universe that brought us into existence.

And when we first hear about the actual scales and ages of things in the Universe, it can be terrifying.

Image credit: Rob Knop, via his excellent blog Galactic Interactions.

Image credit: Rob Knop, via his excellent blog Galactic Interactions.

The entire Universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the Earth and Sun have been around for about a third of that. If you were to compress the entire history of the Universe into a single calendar year, I would have been born at 11:59 and 59.9 seconds PM on December 31st, and in fact the first homo sapiens would only have appeared for the final seven minutes!

Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / GALEX.

Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / GALEX.

For all the time that the Universe has been around, that the stars have been shining, that the planets have been orbiting, our own lifetimes are small, minuscule, and, at least as far as the rest of the Universe is concerned, cosmically insignificant. If you were to compare your lifespan — even if you lived 100 years — to the age of the Universe, that’s the same as if you compared 23 seconds to your entire life. In other words, your time in this Universe is very, very short.

And if instead of time, you start pondering size, the story is just as awe-inspiring.

Image credit: docstoc, via user HC120712222550 of http://www.docstoc.com/ (public domain).

Image credit: docstoc, via user HC120712222550 of http://www.docstoc.com/ (public domain).

As humans, we’re on the order of a meter in size, some ten orders of magnitude larger than the atoms that make us up. A typical human is a little under two meters tall; a hydrogen atom is a little under two Ångströms in diameter. But ten orders of magnitude is tremendous.

Image credit: Fraser Cain of Universe Today.

Image credit: Fraser Cain of Universe Today.

A giant star like Arcturus, some 25 times the diameter of our Sun, is around ten orders of magnitude the size of a human being. And to the Universe, that’s still nothing! From Arcturus, if we scale up another ten orders of magnitude, that’s what it takes to get a typical small galaxy like — not Andromeda — but the small satellite galaxy visible just below the large Andromeda galaxy!

Image credit: © Fabian Neyer of http://www.starpointing.com/.

Image credit: © Fabian Neyer of http://www.starpointing.com/.

And a galaxy like this is made up of maybe a trillion Arcturus-massed objects. And to go up another ten orders of magnitude… well, you can’t. The observable Universe — all of the galaxies, all of the stars, planets, lifeforms and atoms — is “only” some 1027 meters in diameter, or just seven orders of magnitude larger than the diameter of a small galaxy.

Image credit: Andreas Berlind of Vanderbilt University, for the LasDamas collaboration.

Image credit: Andreas Berlind of Vanderbilt University, for the LasDamas collaboration.

In other words, you are small. The difference between an atom and you, in size, if you cubed it, is about the difference in size between you and the Universe.

But if you look at energy, or mass (which is where most of your energy is), you get a different perspective.

Image credit: Ed Uthman, MD, of http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html.

Image credit: Ed Uthman, MD, of http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html.

Small though you may be, ten orders of magnitude larger than an atom, you yourself are actually an entire Universe of atoms, with more than 1027 atoms making up your body! (This makes a little bit of sense, since you’re the height of 1010 atoms, and you’re a three-dimensional object.) But this is highly disproportional to the bulk of the Universe.

Image credit: wikipedia user 28bytes, under CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Image credit: wikipedia user 28bytes, under CC-BY-SA-3.0.

You see, only 1% of the Universe, by mass, is made up of elements other than hydrogen or helium. And yet, you are 90% “other stuff,” and only about 10% hydrogen.

Image credit: NASA.

Image credit: NASA.

And while a Sun-like star might be about 1027 times the mass of a person, going up another factor of 1027 would encompass more than the entire Universe.

Image credit: Mark Subbarao, Dinoj Surendran, and Randy Landsberg for the SDSS team.

Image credit: Mark Subbarao, Dinoj Surendran, and Randy Landsberg for the SDSS team.

You see, there’s no denying that we’re here for only a short time. Even if we found a way for humans to live 1,000 years, or even a million years, it would still pale in comparison to the age of the Universe. Coming to grips with our own transience and brevity in this Universe is something we all have the opportunity to do; whether we do or not won’t change that fact.

There’s no denying our smallness in scale, either, as the largest scales in the Universe are blissfully unaware of the entirety of all the goings-on ever to take place on our world. I understand the simultaneous awe and terror about this fact.

Image credit: ESO / Very Large Telescope / FORS instrument & team.

Image credit: ESO / Very Large Telescope / FORS instrument & team.

But as far as what we’re made up of — our energy, our mass — we are absolutely privileged. Generations of stars lived and died, fusing a Universe that was once 99.999999% hydrogen and helium into a tiny amount of heavy elements, which formed, after billions of years, into the stars and planets that allowed life as we know it to exist.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC).

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC).

We are so little on our own, and so insignificant compared to the ancient, vast and incredibly massive Universe.

And yet, we’re here, we exist, and we get to bask in our existence however we so choose. Everything we are, everything we have, everything we see, is the ultimate free gift of the Universe to us.

And I can think of no better way to use that gift than to try and understand it, and by understanding it, perhaps understanding ourselves a little bit better.

27 Jun 14:52

Does idling a car or truck save gas? [Greg Laden's Blog]

by Greg Laden

In the old days, it was believed that you would save gas by leaving your car running if you planned to use it again within a few minutes. That has probably become less true over time as cars have gotten more and more efficient over time. Apparently, idling your car for even something like 10 seconds uses more gas than turning it off and on again. This is caused by the use of fancy fuel systems that cars use now. This technology is, of course, leveraged in hybrids which turn their internal combustion engines off and on as needed.

Anyway, here is an infographic that provides the details. The simple answer is, no, idling the vehicle is generally not a good idea, so stop doing that.

Idling_Infographic_01

27 Jun 03:00

Contemplating a church-based living wage campaign

by Morgan Guyton

There were three resolutions for the Virginia annual conference of the United Methodist Church this year. One was never discussed or considered: a proposal for a church-wide living wage campaign. Our youth Bible study took a look at this resolution a couple of weeks ago. Our main critique of it was that it seemed to focus almost exclusively on a legislative approach to the issue, while we felt that a more viable option would be to start with the church and the small businesses of church members as a voluntary witness of economic justice.

For those who are unfamiliar, a living wage is the hourly wage that a single bread-winner with a four-person household would need in order to pay the bare minimum of expenses (rent, food, insurance, etc). It obviously varies according to the cost of living in a given area, but the average living wage for the US is $13.10, which is way higher than our minimum wage of $7.25.

Whenever living wage ordinances are proposed at the legislative level, the typical response from businesses is that it will put people out of work and businesses will relocate to a sweatshop magnet like Texas or another state in the Deep South. But what if the church decided that we will pay our people what they need to earn in order to survive and that we will challenge our members to enact economic justice in their businesses in a way that will be publicly recognized in the church community? I would expand this question beyond the wage-scale itself to include the question of benefits, especially health insurance.

Currently the United Methodist Church essentially has a two-caste aristocracy as an employer: clergy and laity. Clergy have minimum salary standards and benefits like healthcare and pensions that are managed at the statewide annual conference level. Laity on the other hand are often hired in local congregations to work a purportedly twenty hour a week job with no benefits in which the actual weekly expectations exceed full-time work. Many congregations that used to have multiple clergy positions are cutting their clergy positions and replacing them with lay part-time workers to save money.

The reason this arrangement hasn’t been more scandalous than it has is because most of the laity who work in the church have spouses in established careers with good salaries and benefits. But it doesn’t always work that way. When the layperson working for the church doesn’t have a high-earning spouse with benefits, the result can be a crushing economic burden, like having to pay out of pocket $1000 a month for health insurance.

It’s reprehensible that lay church employees who work full-time (whether or not their job description officially labels their work full-time) would not receive a living wage and full health benefits for their families. It means that people who are gifted and called by God to do the work but aren’t married to a doctor, lawyer, military officer, or the equivalent will not be able to accept the job or live in unjust poverty if they do take it. We need to pay all of our hourly and salary employees a living wage, and we need to create a means by which laity can participate in a statewide pool for their health coverage, whether it’s the same pool as clergy or a parallel entity.

Not only should we establish a living wage for church employees, but church members who are employers should have the opportunity to declare that they will treat their employees with economic justice and be publicly honored for this decision. Churches throughout our country have held congregation-wide campaigns to get debt-free using Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University. Why shouldn’t we have congregation-wide campaigns for economic justice in our community as an integral component of our stewardship? If getting debt-free is really about godly stewardship and not just self-interest (a-hem!), then economic justice should go hand in hand with it. Of course, none of this will work unless we address the issue of tithing. When the average giving rate is 1-2% instead of 10%, it creates the economic pressure that pushes churches into behaving like sweatshops.

I wouldn’t be fired up about this if our annual conference hadn’t swept the living wage proposal under the rug (due to the live-streaming of our closing worship, we had a very limited fixed time for dealing with all of our resolutions). We could have simply raised our hands recommending that the bishop send a letter to the Virginia governor which he would immediately file in the “to be ignored” pile. I would have probably rolled my eyes and moved on.

But why not change the paradigm entirely? Do economic justice as an act of witness starting from the grassroots level of the local congregation. Isn’t that precisely the way that the church is supposed to be interfacing with society: as witnesses? This approach would call the bluff of anyone who complains about legislatively mandated economic justice as being “big government tyranny.” Why not Biblically mandated economic justice as a means of living out your discipleship? I’m not going to list all the supporting proof-texts, though there are many.

I’d be very interested in knowing what experiences other folks have had with this sort of thing. Surely there are churches out there that have done this. And I’m woefully ignorant of the intricacies within the United Methodist system that would need to be tweaked to ensure that lay church workers receive the same kind of economic security that clergy now enjoy.


Filed under: General Topics, Politics
27 Jun 02:59

DOMA Struck Down – Thank you

by Kimberly Knight
Some phrases that took my breath away in the UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL. case “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition [Read More...]
27 Jun 02:57

Clement Of Alexandria, Romans 11, And Interreligious Dialogue

by RodtRDH
Hagia Sophia ; Empress Zoë mosaic : Christ Pan...

Hagia Sophia ; Empress Zoë mosaic : Christ Pantocrator; Istanbul, Turkey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While reading Clement of Alexandria during a recent church service, I happened to read what good ole Clement thought of Romans 11, and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, he saw the language of engrafting as being very helpful too. I know, WHAT ARE THE ODDS!

This is a pretty extensive quote [Clement's Stromata/The Carpets, Book 6, Chapter 15], so I am going to break it down, and mansplain this one:

Different modes of engrafting illustrative of different kinds of conversion.  They say that engrafting is effected in four modes: one, that in which   the graft must be fitted in between the wood and the bark; resembling   the way in which we instruct plain people belonging to the Gentiles,   who receive the word superficially.

First thing I would like to note by the first mode is that Clement makes use of the biblical category of GENTILE.  Our “conversion” to the faith is not the, ahem, one way to come to know the One True God that the prophets preached. In other words, the place where we Gentiles stands is one of incorporation.

Another is, when the wood is cleft,  and there is inserted in it the cultivated branch. And this applies to   the case of those who have studied philosophy; for on cutting through   their dogmas, the acknowledgment of the truth is produced in them. So  also in the case of the Jews, by opening up the Old Testament, the new  and noble plant of the olive is inserted.

The second mode is enlightenment, and this is primarily the place of where the Jews, God’s chosen ones stand.  Why do I say this? Because Clement argues that the philosophers stole or borrowed their best ideas (monotheism, ethics that line up with The Law), from the Jews.  On the hierarchy of philosophers, the ancient Hebrews are at the very top of the pyramid for Clement. While the language of enlightment brings its own set of problem, I think a limited use in this instance is valuable.

The third mode of engrafting   applies to rustics and heretics, who are brought by force to the truth.   For after smoothing off both suckers with a sharp pruning-hook, till   the pith is laid bare, but not wounded, they are bound together.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–211/216).

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–211/216). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of the four modes, the third one is the most troubling for me. Even if Clement means in a not-so-PC fashion that verbal confrontation of heretics and pagans, I mean, rustics, will mean arrival at truth, there is something dominionist and violent about this approach to Christianity and other religions. A fellow Alexandrian, Cyril, years later, may have taken these words to heart, and lead mobs against Egyptian Jews. Of course, that would mean overlooking Clement’s second mode for engrafting.

And   the fourth is that form of engrafting called budding. For a bud (eye)   is cut out of a trunk of a good sort, a circle being drawn round in the   bark along with it, of the size of the palm. Then the trunk is   stripped, to suit the eye, over an equal circumference. And so the   graft is inserted, tied round, and daubed with clay, the bud being kept   uninjured and unstained. This is the style of gnostic teaching, which   is capable of looking into things themselves. This mode is, in truth,   of most service in the case of cultivated trees. And “the engrafting   into the good olive” mentioned by the apostle, may be [engrafting into]   Christ Himself; the uncultivated and unbelieving nature being   transplanted into Christ–that is, in the case of those who believe in   Christ. But it is better [to understand it] of the engrafting [3425] of   each one’s faith in the soul itself. For also the Holy Spirit is thus   somehow transplanted by distribution, according to the circumscribed   capacity of each one, but without being circumscribed.

 

Clement’s last mode is more about sanctification and perfection, what he referred to as assimilation, or the believer (gnostic) is participating in the life of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This requires a Trinitarian understanding of personhood: an idea that all humanity has the potential to become involved in the divine life of YHWH.

I am just still trying to sort all of this out, but I think the implications of Clement’s use of engrafting are 75% helpful when it comes to discussing other religions, and possibly even mission work.  For Gentiles, our vocation is to approach other Gentiles, as Gentiles, in honesty, and not hiding (or denying this fact). To this effect, we can have a conversation about religion not on our terms, but on possibly others’ terms, and affirm the uniqueness of their experience, all the while, Christians can present the Good News of the Resurrection, and the truth about the person Christ Jesus. As for the problematic third mode, I would revise the budding language, and rather than aim it at the “rustics” as city slicker Clement would have us, but rather a verbal confrontation towards apostates and heretical Christians.  There’s good precedent set for this by the apostle Paul in his letters to the Corinthians.  So, the difference would be the “budding” as an interior critique that takes place inside the Body of Christ.

Wherefore also, though the wild olive be wild, it crowns the Olympic victors.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
27 Jun 02:51

Christian holiness and the gay marriage debate

by Morgan Guyton

If there ever comes a time when evangelical Christians are known for something other than their opposition to homosexuality, maybe today’s Supreme Court ruling will help. We have been living through an era in which Christian morality has been almost exclusively focused on sexuality. Within the Christian community, the gay marriage debate has helped to delineate two entirely different visions for Christian holiness. Do we understand holiness primarily in terms of correctness, or fidelity to a set of commandments? Or is holiness primarily a state of the heart in which we have been emptied of all obstacles to loving God and our neighbor? How you understand holiness determines how you will read scripture and how you think about homosexuality as a Christian.

I. Holiness as correctness

If holiness is about correctness, then the purpose of reading the Bible is to figure out what opinions you are supposed to have about the issues in our world. What is most important to Christians who pursue this form of holiness is that they approve what is supposed to be approved and denounce what is supposed to be denounced. In this worldview, the purpose of the church is to make sure that we are correct. If you don’t correct others when they are in error, then you are allowing unholiness to corrupt your fellowship, so every Christian disciple needs to be brought into accountability and close supervision. In such an environment, conversation about the Bible means learning the correct phrases to say from listening carefully to the phrases that your small group leader and preacher use and then mimicking them.

When you are guided by this conception of holiness, the challenge of holiness is to hold fast to the correctness you have acquired against a ferocious assault of contradictions from the outside world. The opposite of holiness is understood to be agreeableness, or “compromise” (in evangelical-speak). Your holiness is measured in direct proportion to the number of controversial, “old-fashioned” opinions you hold about the set of issues that God has placed in front of you to test your faithfulness, such as the role of women in the church and at home, whether the Earth was created in six solar days or billions of years, whether or not you should spank children, whether or not hell exists, and of course, homosexuality (did I miss any?).

Pursuing this type of holiness means that your thoughts and conversations tend to focus on whatever topics cause the most friction between the Bible and modern sensibilities (as opposed to, say, the areas of spiritual growth where you personally need the most improvement). The reason homosexuality is such a perfect testing ground for this form of holiness is because it pits the Bible against civil rights, which makes the opposition to homosexuality utterly confounding to liberals who get mad and call you a bunch of names, which increases your holiness points through persecution.

II. Holiness as a state of the heart

You can also define holiness as a quest to gain what is called “the heart of Christ.” There are no explicit Biblical references to pursuing the heart of Christ, but it has been a concept in Christian piety since the beginning, most famously delineated in 14th century priest Thomas A Kempis’ Imitation of Christ, which was one of Methodist founder John Wesley’s favorite books. People who see holiness in this way yearn to respond to every life situation the way that Jesus would and focus on eliminating every competing allegiance or obstacle in their hearts to purely Christlike instincts.

With the first form of holiness, the basic guiding question is “Am I perfectly correct?” With the second, it’s “Am I perfectly loving?” To this second holiness, sin is a problem not just because the Bible says it’s wrong, but because it prevents me from seeing Jesus’ heart and being perfectly loving to others. I want to be liberated from whatever idols and addictions corrupt my love and make me oblivious to the needs of others, whether or not they are explicitly named in the Bible. When I go to the Bible, I am not looking for a set of correct opinions about issues; I am looking for a savior to follow and imitate. I understand every teaching in terms of how it will purify my heart so that all my instincts and intuitions are Christlike.

The Good Samaritan story in Luke 10:25-37 seems to be a very plain illustration of the difference between these two types of holiness. Why did the Samaritan stop, but not the priest and the Levite? The text says that he was “moved by compassion.” So it’s a heart thing, not a head thing. The priest and the Levite had all kinds of rules to tell them how to behave correctly. But ultimately their sense of duty was no substitute for having a Christlike heart. In fact, their rules of cleanliness probably forbade them from touching the body of the wounded traveler. Their sense of holiness was understood in terms of obedience to a book instead of love for a God who tells us to love Him in our neighbors.

Now does this mean you can just do whatever you like as long as you’re “loving” to other people? By no means! When our hearts are cluttered with selfish lusts, addictions, and idols, we are too self-absorbed to notice the wounded travelers on the side of the road. We cannot be moved by compassion if we are enchained by anger, lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, pride, or envy. So we seek teachings that cultivate the fruits of the spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness,gentleness, and self-control,” through which God dissolves the ugliness within our hearts so they can purely belong to Him.

III. The Gay Marriage Debate

Christians with these two very different conceptions of holiness are almost completely incomprehensible to each other. When someone uses the Bible to find correct opinions on controversial issues, every verse is basically boiled down to “pro” or “anti.” The details aren’t important. Thus, it doesn’t matter whether Paul was talking about a Roman orgy in Romans 1:26-27 or that he specifically named adultery that occurs with multiple same-sex partners as being “against nature.” All of these details are airbrushed out because the proof-text can only be “pro” or “anti.”

It also doesn’t matter that the meaning of the two words malakoi and arsenokotai that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 can only be speculated, and they could very reasonably mean the provider and client of a male prostitution relationship. That’s intolerable; God wouldn’t be unclear like that if the purpose of the Bible is to give you clear positions on important issues. That’s why when one prominent anti-gay activist Bible scholar decides that these two words mean the passive and active partners in gay sex, then the debate has been resolved permanently forever and the translation is set in stone because the NIV says so.

If you understand holiness to be a state of the heart that is most surrendered to God’s love, you’re going to read the Bible completely differently than someone who is combing the text to find correct stances on popular issues. Someone who understands holiness in this way wants to know how any behavior sabotages the reign of God’s love in one’s heart. Correctness for the sake of correctness isn’t adequate. The context of every prohibition and instruction matters because the context is part of how we are able to understand analogous behaviors in our time that the Bible doesn’t name explicitly.

To this view of holiness, when you take out prostitution and promiscuity, it’s hard to see what the gender of someone’s lifelong partner has to do with whether or not you are able to love as Jesus loved. So you start to question whether Paul’s teachings have been interpreted incorrectly, and whether the need for the Leviticus prohibition on male homosexuality occurs in an ancient patriarchal context in which “uncovering another man’s nakedness” had disastrous, chaotic implications for the social order.

Incidentally, the command “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman” is only a prohibition on homosexuality if a male reader is presumed, and the reason male readers are presumed by Leviticus 18 is because only men got to decide about sex in a patriarchal order. So to apply Leviticus 18:22 literally and without context to our time means not only 1) that men should not have sex with men, but also 2) that men should be the only decision-makers in sexual relationships.

IV. The Real Issue

To me, the real issue that God is exposing here is that many Christians demonstrate a complete aloofness to Paul’s teaching about justification by faith with the way that they define Christian discipleship and use the Bible. To understand holiness as the pursuit of correctness is exactly like the gospel that Paul’s opponents were preaching to the Galatians and Romans. You cannot betray Paul’s teaching more perfectly than to take Paul’s words and make them into the new “law” that saves us. And yet so many evangelicals have basically become modern-day Galatians substituting a new “law” for the old “law,” not recognizing that putting all our trust in God’s mercy and renouncing the self-justifying pursuit of correctness is the only means by which our hearts can be conquered for Christ, who then gains the access to crucify our sinful nature and resurrect us into new life. It’s understandable that we’d rather be correct than under God’s mercy, but correctness is damnation in those terms.

So the debate about homosexuality is only the superficial means by which the real, underlying apostasy is exposed. If we keep on using God’s teachings to justify and elevate ourselves, we will keep storing up more and more of His wrath. What we need to do when we open the Bible is search for Jesus and ask Him to convict us of any sin that keeps us from loving like He loves. We need to stop making holiness about our approval or disapproval of other peoples’ behavior and instead seek to be emptied and perfect vessels of the love that we have received from our savior.


Filed under: Bible, General Topics, Politics, Theology
27 Jun 02:50

A Tricky, Difficult Miktam

by Jeff Carter

Just about everything in Psalm 16 is problematic.  Go ahead and read it in any translation and, even after the translators best work it still doesn’t scan well.  It is difficult to make sense of many of the individual lines, and as a whole it hangs together only barely…

To begin…

It is described as a “Miktam of David.”  What is a miktam?  Exactly.  We don’t know.  Only 6 of the Psalms are described as Miktams  (psalms 16 and 56 – 60). Some have suggested that the word has something to do with the theme of these 6 psalms – in which case it may mean something like lament.  Others connect it to inscriptions in stone.  Another suggestion links Miktam to the word ketem which means “gold”  - making these “golden psalms”  but that isn’t really clear either.

And each of these is linked to King David – but don’t be fooled by that preposition “of.”  This doesn’t necessarily mean that David wrote them.  In Hebrew this preposition can mean of, or about, or for, or to… There is nothing in Psalm 16 that connects specifically to any of the events of David’s life.  This isn’t to say that he didn’t write it or that he couldn’t have – but there’s nothing in it that clearly connects it to David’s hand.

Verse 2 is difficult.  Check out the variety of ways it’s been translated.   My good (or welfare) is not beyond (or additional to) you.  Well, that’s very well and good, but what does it mean? 

And while we’re being difficult, verse 3 is tricky as well.  Who are the holy ones in view here?  Are they Canaanite deities?  Or are they Israelite saints?  Opinion is divided.

Is the “multiplied sorrows” of verse 4 intended as an echo of the curse placed upon the woman in Genesis 3? 

In verse 7 it is literally the psalmist’s “kidneys” that is instructing him, but this is only a difference of idiom. We don’t literally believe that our “heart” is the center of our thinking and deliberation.

But it is verse 10 that will probably give us the most difficulty.  Ever since Peter and Paul used this chapter in their apologies recorded in The Acts of the Apostles it has been the Christian understanding that this is prophecy – a prediction of Jesus’ resurrection.  But that wouldn’t have been the Psalmists first intent.  In fact, resurrection probably wasn’t even in his mind.

It comes down to the question Is this verse about being preserved from death or being preserved out of death – two similar but very different propositions. 

Peter and Paul interpreted it to mean that God would not allow his faithful one (that is, Jesus) to stay dead after being crucified – that he would be preserved out of death.    But the resurrection of the dead wasn’t a feature of Judaism until long after King David’s time (assuming that David wrote it, after all).

What seems more likely is that the Psalmist is thanking God for preserving him from death – that is, protecting him from an untimely death.

Mitchell Dahood, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on the Psalms, suggests that the Psalmist believed that he would be taken up to God’s presence without having suffered death – like the heroes Enoch and Elijah.  But this, too, is very different than the traditional Christian interpretation of resurrection of the body.


From start to finish it’s a tricky, difficult Miktam.

(and even though it may be problematic, that doesn't mean we can't sing it...)
27 Jun 02:18

Divine Violence and Natural Disasters

by Ian

There are a wide variety of interpretations of Natural Disasters among members of religious communities. Among religious groups with a theistic model of God, Natural Disasters require a theological explanation. Most work on the theology of Natural Disasters begins from the assumption that the disaster is an event which is either morally problematic, or at best neutral with effects that are morally problematic. This leads to conclusions that reconcile human moral intuitions about the situation with pre-existing doctrines of the moral character of the divine. Thus natural disasters may be seen as random events in which God comes alongside human beings, or that they are allowed by God to develop human beings toward a greater good, or that they indicate a judgement by God on other moral failings of the victims of the event, or their wider culture.

There is a thread in popular discourse among groups of believers which takes this third explanation and intensifies it, effectively rejecting any consideration of the moral effects on victims. In this rhetoric, God is called upon to inflict violence by means of natural disaster as an indication of God’s moral disapproval on a group. This is a natural, if logically fallacious, extension: if natural disasters are violent retribution in judgement over moral failings, then we would look to God to engage in violence when we perceive moral failings.

This is, unsurprisingly, rather a common theme on the right wing Christian forums and blogs today. Those who feel they have been dealt a moral defeat over Same Sex Marriage are warning (in terms that hardly contain their glee at the prospect), or calling on God to send devastating natural disasters, in violent retribution for the supreme court’s decision.

There are several dimensions to this that are interesting. A more comprehensive study would be fascinating and could go in several directions, including comparisons of this ideology with those that directly engage in violence.

The direction I’m particularly interested in is the interaction between this phenomena and the rhetoric (as opposed to the practice) of human-mediated violence in such groups.

In particular, I’ve been clipping conversations that highlight a link between calls for divine-mediated violence through natural disaster on internal enemies, but state-mediated violence through war on external enemies. There seems a further link (but it is harder to get the evidence) for those who call for individual violence on individual criminals as the primary means of moral judgement. So, under the judgement of God, criminals neeed to be shot (rather than tried or imprisoned), gay rights activists need to suffer tornadoes or earthquakes, while Iranians need to be carpet bombed or ‘nuked’. Natural disasters as divine violence thus forms an interesting exception in the way they understand God to intervene violently to restore righteousness.

It is an interesting and curious enough phenomenon that potentially I think it could make a good paper. But not soon. Too much other stuff to do. Any thoughts on the topic, or how it could be constructively understood?


27 Jun 02:17

Rich, educated westerners could be skewing social science studies

by Robert T. Gonzalez

Rich, educated westerners could be skewing social science studies

The vast majority of psychological studies recruit test subjects who are Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic – or "WEIRD." Which is... well, weird, given that these people represent a very small segment of the global human population, from a cultural standpoint.

Read more...

    


27 Jun 02:17

New Survey: 50% of Americans Find Atheism ‘Threatening’

by Hemant Mehta

The Bertelsmann Stiftung is a German non-profit that researches, publishes, and “stimulates debate” on a variety of societal issues. They just released the results of their 2013 Religion Monitor in which they analyzed responses to a 100-question survey regarding religion/politics completed by 14,000 individuals in 13 countries.

What did they find?

Here are the most interesting results found in the report (PDF):

The U.S. loves religion and spirituality… but not as much as Turkey:

For some reason, only Israeli youth are more religious than their older counterparts. Everywhere else, the younger you are, the less important religion is to you:

More than any other country in this study, U.S. residents agree with the statement “Leading religious figures should exercise an influence on government decisions.” And, along with Israel, we rank highest when it comes to believing “Only politicians who believe in God are suitable for public office.”

Only the people of Turkey believe Islam poses no threat whatsoever to them (which makes sense given its demographics):

50% of U.S. residents find atheism “threatening” (second only to Brazil, where the number is slightly greater than half):

The Bertelsmann Stiftung analysts explained it this way:

One of the main reasons for this phenomenon is probably the heated media discourse about the “new atheists” that was conducted in both countries [U.S. and Canada] in recent decades. Additionally, the widespread centrality of religion in the USA means that this country fits the pattern of other highly religious societies. In any case, the public and highly emotional confrontation appears to have resulted in a certain degree of polarisation between religious people and atheists.

Nearly half of Sweden finds religion to be harmful:

People from the U.S. are most likely to “make great sacrifices for [their] faith if necessary” though we’re not the most likely to proselytize, a distinction that belongs to Turkey’s Muslims:

More than 70% of people in the U.S. trust those of us with no religious affiliation. While being a “None” isn’t quite the same as being an atheist, that result could possibly contradict studies showing that atheists are not trustworthy,

Other countries aside, when you look at these charts altogether, what you find is that the amount of respect we have for religion in the U.S. is just incredibly high. There’s still a strong correlation between religiosity and morality/goodness that pervades our politics and society at large. It’s a mischaracterization that hurts us in the long run. Other societies that embrace atheists (and other non-majority religions) seem to do pretty well for themselves.

27 Jun 02:16

My Jesus Books are out!

by Ken Schenck
The Kindle editions have been ready for over a week but I've been waiting for my two Jesus books to hit Amazon before mentioning them here.

They're out!

The first covers the basics, the core elements of Jesus' earthly mission, including his passion and resurrection.



The second focuses more on the gospel portraits and their unique themes, with the final chapter talking about the way Christology reached its final form in the early centuries of the church.
27 Jun 00:16

why abusive pastors like Standridge will always find pulpits

by David Hayward

Trigger warning: this 5 minutes video is spiritual abuse at its finest:

Click here to view the embedded video.

First of all… yes, this is abuse.

  1. He shames people publicly.
  2. He exalts himself over the other person.
  3. He enlists God as justification for what he does.
  4. He says he loves you while hurting you.
  5. He threatens if we don’t agree that he loves us.
  6. He points his finger at you and yells.
  7. He commands obedience.
  8. He uses physical touch to augment what he’s saying.
  9. He jokes about you to other people as if you’re not there.
  10. He threatens not to do something for you.
  11. He insults you.
  12. He demeans your value and depreciates your worth to you and others.
  13. He uses stares to intimidate.
  14. He calls you names.
  15. He verbally establishes his own higher value and power over you.
  16. He says that you won’t get anything better and so this is your only option.
  17. He threatens to leave if you fight him.
  18. He threatens to give himself to someone else who wants him.
  19. He frightens you into worrying about losing your own children.
  20. He mocks you to your face and in front of others.
  21. He isolates you by threatening those who love you to leave you alone.
  22. He divides family members against one another.
  23. He annihilates all threats of competition.
  24. He tells you to prove your love to him by giving him what he wants.
  25. He demands unquestioning submission.
  26. He expresses relief once his anger and frustration has been unleashed.
  27. He prays when he’s finished and asks you to join him.

Jim Standridge will always find a pulpit and he knows it. Because he knows that there are enough Christians who want this kind of relationship because they feel they deserve it. The way Standridge acts is the way God acts. God is angry. They repent. God forgives. On and on this goes, reaffirming that there is at least some kind of working relationship between them and God.

Believe me, some of these people might leave his church, but more will come. The word will get out there that Pastor Standridge preaches it like it is! He preaches the truth! He won’t stand for sin in the church, so look out!

I appreciate this short clip so much because this pastor says what many pastors and the church think and feel. There is a lot of anger and frustration with the people. People are a disappointment. They frustrate the program. They get in the way of the vision. They undermine the churches agenda. Their sin pollutes the purity of the church and prevents the Spirit from fully moving.

If you want to meet others who have been through this stuff and left it, I invite you to join The Lasting Supper.

27 Jun 00:15

Professor Who Was Suspended for Supposedly Telling Students to ‘Stomp on Jesus’ is Reinstated… Sort of

by Hemant Mehta

If you don’t remember Florida Atlantic University Professor Deandre Poole‘s name, you probably do remember what he became known for: The conservative Christian media claimed he forced his students to stomp on paper with the word “JESUS” written on it:

“JESUS” written on a piece of paper in big letters

After student Ryan Rotela, a Mormon, refused to do so, he was suspended. Or so the story went, anyway:

That’s when I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table… I said to the professor “With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I just do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate. I believe it was unprofessional and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.”

… From that point on, I knew I had to do something about it, because I am not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated.

Even Governor Rick Scott threw in his own two cents, calling the assignment “offensive” and “intolerant.”

There were two things worth noting about that story:

First, the purpose of the assignment was not to desecrate or demean Jesus. It was to show that symbols can be powerful. Most students wouldn’t want to stomp on the “word” Jesus, just like most students wouldn’t want to stomp on their religion’s holy book, just like most students wouldn’t want to step on a picture of their own mothers. Elucidating the fact that we’re so averse to doing things like that which don’t have any tangible effect on anyone or anything was the very purpose of the lesson!

Second, when Dr. Poole finally broke his silence, we learned that Rotela was lying about how things went down:

Poole said that, as best he could tell, only one student in the course had an objection [to the lesson]. That student — whom Poole did not name in the interview, but who has come forward in local news reports saying he was suspended for objecting to the exercise — refused to participate and then said repeatedly, Poole said, “How dare you disrespect someone’s religion?”

After class, the student came up to him, and made that statement again, this time hitting his balled fist into his other hand and saying that “he wanted to hit me.” While the student did not do so, Poole said he was alarmed and notified campus security and filed a report on the student.

Poole, a Sunday School teacher and devout Christian himself, couldn’t believe how he was being targeted by right-wing groups for simply doing his job.

There’s finally some good news to report on this issue: Dr. Poole has been reinstated by FAU… but he’s not back in the classroom just yet:

Poole will be returning to his position, in the School of Communication and Multimedia Studies, at FAU next week, but will only be teaching online courses for the first two semesters of his return.

That’s Poole’s decision, by the way, to be online. He fears for his own safety and thought it’d be the best option.

He also won’t be teaching the class that involved the Jesus-stomping:

Poole also mentioned that he will not be teaching the Intercultural Communications (SPC 3710) course that he was teaching when the controversy sparked.

That’s a real blow for the students who understood the assignment and who knew Poole was trying to educate them, not attack a religious faith (that also happened to be his own…):

“I think students are very good at determining how serious and good a faculty member is,” [Interim Dean of the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters] Heather Coltman said. “Many students that I spoke to told me he was the reason they would drive down to Davie to take one of his courses. He’s a dedicated teacher who connects well with students.”

If the school is supporting him, I don’t get why he can’t teach the same class again… but the good news is that the school didn’t cave to the irrational Religious Right. Poole still has his job.

Too bad some Christians still don’t get what the assignment was all about:

… Mark Boykin, pastor at a local church, called Poole’s reinstatement an insult.

“What’s next?” Boykin asked WPTV. “Spit on the cross, you get tenure?”


27 Jun 00:14

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day

WASHINGTON—Shortly after turning in dissenting opinions in landmark federal rulings today that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and conferred full federal benefits to married same-sex couples, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence T...
27 Jun 00:13

Call for Obama to Address Witchcraft Human Rights Abuses

by John W. Morehead

For Immediate Release – 26th June 2006

Call for President Obama to Demand Urgent Action to Tackle Widespread Human Rights Abuses that Take Place Throughout Africa Due to the Belief in ‘Witchcraft’

As President Obama commences his visit to Africa, we call upon him to use the tour as an opportunity to demand urgent action to tackle the widespread, and systemic, violations of human rights that take place across the Continent due to harmful practices connected to the belief in ‘witchcraft’.  Such beliefs are strongly held by many in the countries that he will visit – Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania – and they often lead to some of the most horrific human rights abuses imaginable. Vulnerable individuals and groups in society are most at risk, including older women, street children and people with disabilities.
Of many examples that have been catalogued, in April 2013 the body of the 14 year old boy, Nkhumeleni Mukhado, was discovered in a village in South Africa. His skull and genitals had been removed. His is just one of many similar tragic stories where people are killed so that their body parts can be incorporated into concoctions used in what is labelled as ‘witchcraft’. It is often believed that, through ingesting such concoctions, the receiver will gain greater wealth and power.
In Gambia, which borders Senegal, Amnesty International have documented[1]over 1000 cases of suspected ‘witches’ being rounded up by President Jammeh’s special guards who then tortured the suspects and forced to drink potions that caused them to hallucinate and behave erratically. Many were then forced to confess to being a “witch”. In some cases, they were also severely beaten, almost to the point of death.
In Tanzania, according to the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC)[2], an average of 500 people were murdered each year on suspicion of ‘witchcraft’ between 2005 and 2011, whilst numerous people with albinism have been murdered in cold blood for their body parts.
Such beliefs and practices self-evidently constitute a significant obstacle to the reputation, peace and prosperity of the region. They inhibit economic growth, investment and trade; weaken democratic institutions; and prevent hundreds of thousands of Africans from reaching their true potential. President Obama should demand that Africa’s political and faith leaders, and the wider international community, do more to put a stop to the horrific human rights abuses that continue to scar this great Continent.

Signed:
All Party Parliamentary Group for Street Children  
Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales               


Basic Rights Counsel





Bethany Children’s Trust




Centre for Human Rights and Development



Churches Child Protection Advisory Service (CCPAS) 


Consortium for Street Children                 



Greenwich Inclusion Project




Humane Africa
International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
The Pagan Federation





Stepping Stones Nigeria


Street Invest




Witchcraft and Human Rights Information Network (WHRIN)
Baroness Sue Miller
Kirsty Brimelow QC
Professor Susan Edwards, University of Buckinghamshire
Dr Christina Oakley Harrington, Treadwells, London.
Russell Brown MP
Leo Igwe – Nigerian Humanist Movement
John W. Morehead, Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy
Hugh Davies OBE QC, 3 Raymond Buildings
Louisa Young – Author
Zoe Young – Film Maker
Paul Stockley – Development Worker






26 Jun 20:45

Texas women stand up to bullying

by Fred Clark

Late last night I got caught up in the drama unfolding in Austin, where hundreds of women rallied to stop a state senate vote that would have effectively shut down most of Texas’ abortion providers.

The effort to ram this bill through in a non-emergency “emergency” session of Texas’ legislature led to a very strange week. We heard Republican state legislators explain about “accurate intercourse” and about how “in the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out.” And then we saw more than 700 Texas women sign up to testify against the bill — many of them sharing their personal stories, the kinds of stories supporters of this bill usually deny or ignore or choose not to hear.

With acoustics like this, you’ve gotta sing. (Dallas Morning News photo by Louis DeLuca from linked gallery.)

But the not-emergency session was on a tight schedule, and if lawmakers had allowed every woman who would be harmed by this bill to testify then those hearings might have gone on forever. So hearings were cut short and so were procedural corners and the bill was set for a vote yesterday, the final day of the session.

Sen. Wendy Davis planned to filibuster the bill, but its supporters weren’t worried. Texas’ rules for filibusters are quirky, draconian, and nearly impossible to follow. For Davis’ filibuster to succeed, she would have to speak for 13 straight hours without pausing, sitting, leaning, eating, drinking, going to the bathroom, or addressing anything other than the specific topic of the specific bill in question — with the bill’s supporters allowed to define that as narrowly as they like.

Just consider that for a moment. A single topic, no exceptions, for 13 hours. Speaking aloud for 13 hours straight without wetting your throat. Thirteen hours without a potty break.

Plus, well, Davis is a woman. Supporters of this bill support bills like this one because they believe that women are inherently irresponsible and untrustworthy, requiring legal guidance because they cannot be expected to make correct choices on their own. They tend to underestimate women. And did they ever underestimate Davis.

In the end — after Davis had held the floor for more than 11 straight hours — the only way to silence her was with a bit of procedural Calvinball. When Davis began discussing sonograms, the Republican majority ruled that she had introduced subject matter not “germane” to the bill in question and declared her marathon filibuster over.

Problem is that by that point it was too late. It wasn’t yet midnight — the majority still had time to ram through a vote on the bill — but Davis’ 11-hour ordeal had drawn the eyes of the world to that chamber in Austin. It was a live-stream, YouTube, Twitter sensation. Everybody was watching, and that put a crimp in the original sneak-this-through-while-no-one-is-looking plan. Plus all those people tuning in to watch had heard Davis speaking, sharing more of those stories that the bill’s supporters had been trying so hard not to allow to be heard.

After another hour or so of parliamentary tit-for-tat, it was suddenly 10 minutes to the midnight deadline. That’s when Sen. Leticia Van de Putte set things off in the gallery. Remember all those women who hadn’t been allowed to speak when the hearings were cut short? They spoke. They spoke loud.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst scrambled to regain order and called a voice vote — at 12:02 a.m. That’s Wednesday morning, after the session had officially ended.

No problem, just tweak the time-stamp. Who’s gonna notice?

Well, everybody, as it turns out. As karoli writes:

There was a YouTube live stream, there was a paper record with a timestamp of 12:02 AM for the vote, there was this image of the date discrepancy, and there were plenty of reporters who put it together and deduced that hijinks were afoot.

Oops. Dewhurst had to concede that the vote came too late. Live by the procedural shenanigans, die by the procedural shenanigans. The Texas women who would not be silenced had successfully staved off a bill to silence Texas women.

For now, anyway. Gov. Rick Perry could choose to call another “emergency” session this afternoon, and just keep calling them until the thing passes, as Charles Kuffner says:

Rick Perry can order another special session five minutes after this one ends, and without redistricting to clog the calendar a bill like SB5 would pass with plenty of time to spare. But some fights aren’t about whether you win or lose, they’re about whether you fought or rolled over. Say what else you want, Democrats didn’t roll over. Wendy Davis sure as hell didn’t roll over. Oh, and she kept standing after her filibuster was interrupted by that last point of order.

Here’s my one suggestion for the next round, or the one after that. The roar of “Let her speak” from the gallery was impressive, but chanting can seem unruly and it’s hard to sustain.

This is where we should take our cue from our Kiwi friends. This is where we should be singing.

Sing “The Star Spangled Banner,” or “America the Beautiful,” or “God Bless America,” or “The Yellow Rose of Texas” — they’d be afraid to stop you, since cutting those off would look bad.

Sing “We Shall Overcome” or “I Shall Not Be Moved” — those songs have historical resonance and, more importantly, they have an infinite number of verses and an endless permutation of harmonies. You can keep them going for hours if you have to.

Sing “This Land Is Your Land” because Woody Guthrie still scares all the right people. Heck, you can sing anything just as long as enough of you know the words and the tune. “Amazing Grace.” “Sweet Caroline.” “You’ll Never Walk Alone.” “Hey Jude.” “Don’t Stop Believin’.”

It doesn’t really matter what you’re singing as much as it matters that you’re singing. Singing works.

Next time — and there will be a next time — I’d love to hear some singing.

Update: My bad … there was singing, after the bill’s failure became clear, the crowd sang “The Eyes of Texas”:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Excellent. Next time, let’s hear even more singing.

26 Jun 20:40

Plaszow Camp, Schindler Factory, Jewish Quarter

by jillmoffhoward

ladies lunch plaszowToday was definitely a lighter day as far as the content and atmosphere of the day compared with yesterday.  We still had a few things that were hard to hear, but over all, there was more laughter and more “normal” life for us today.

We started the morning with visiting a camp that was actually right here in Krakow, Poland during the Nazi occupation.  There was not much to see at the camp, but there were several memorial stones and a really touching memorial tribute to the victims of the camp on the grounds (in the picture.)  The people in the memorial have the gap in their bodies that symbolize that even before they were executed, their hearts where no longer there, as tragically their human dignity had already been taken away.  It was so strange to think of the horrors that took place at this camp that was right in the heart of Krakow, and now you can look across the street and see a Polish Ikea and a few gas stations.  Life goes on, etc.  It was a strange feeling.  A crazy fact about the Holocaust in Poland is that Krakow alone had 68,000 Jewish people before the war.  When the Nazis invaded, they were rounded up and sent to the “Jewish residential area” (Jewish ghetto) and eventually to concentration camps and in many cases, straight to gas chambers at death camps.  Only 2,000 Jews survived the Holocaust, and now, only 150 currently live in Krakow.  Unbelievable!  We later toured the Jewish quarter, which is a location that has been restored and built up with Jewish restaurants, shops, and is the location of Jewish music festivals and where many people enjoying hanging out, eating, and shopping the open markets.  We were told that the government is trying to send a message that the Jewish community is welcome and safe in Krakow.  Will it work?  Who knows.  There have been many people wondering about anti-semitism here, and we’ve kind of gotten mixed messages about it, but the overall message has been that there are no huge issues around it.  I’ll admit there is a little skepticism amongst us in the group.

We also toured the Schindler factory today, which I’ll admit was not the most exciting part of the trip.  It was really a museum about the history of Poland in the war.  I think I would have enjoyed it more if my back did not hurt so much- a doctor’s appointment about my lower back pain might be in my future…

We ended our day with a nice meal at a Polish restaurant.  It’s been another great day of conversation with new friends and taking in a lot of information.  Tomorrow we will go back to Auschwitz 1 and Birkenau for further visits and reflections, as well as a candle lighting ceremony at the execution wall.  I look forward to sharing more reflections with you all.  I also plan to do a post soon to talk more about Eva’s ideas and experiences with forgiveness and my own reflections on that as a pastor.  So stay tuned!

Again, thanks for reading- I am privileged to share my journey with you!


26 Jun 20:22

Biblioblogs.com still defunct

by Mark Goodacre
I've been writing a paper, now with first draft completed, for the SBL International in July.  It's advertised title is "Pods, Blogs, Websites and Mark," but I have retitled it as "Mark in a Digital Age: The Internet and the Teaching of Mark's Gospel".  Research for it has involved going back and re-reading old blog posts, which is enormously good fun.  I had forgotten, though, that the site biblioblogs.com, which used to be run by Brandon Wason, John Hobbins and Jim West, is now defunct and so was grateful to Mark Hoffman for drawing attention to the Wayback Machine Archive of the old site.  Some of the formatting of the interviews has become a little mangled, but otherwise it's all there.

I'm wondering whether we should archive this properly?  I am happy to host it if someone else can be bothered to grab all the files.

While reading my own interview from back then, I came across one hilarious failed prediction, which I'll comment on separately.
26 Jun 20:22

Interfaith Alliance Celebrates SCOTUS Decisions on DOMA, Prop. 8

by Guest Contributor
Interfaith Alliance President the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy issued the following statement celebrating today’s Supreme Court decisions: "The enormity of today’s decisions cannot be overstated..."
26 Jun 20:20

A Thought on DOMA's Demise and the Christian Discussion to Follow

by Eric Reitan
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States of America struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which has blocked federal benefits to married same-sex couples. They also let stand a lower-court ruling that overthrew California's Prop 8 (which would have banned same-sex marriage in that state).

They didn't assert a fundamental right of same-sex couples to be married, but the momentum here is unambiguous and, I think, inevitable. Given the generational divide on this issue--the broad and growing acceptance of homosexual couples and relationships among young Americans--we are seeing an accelerating move towards the normalization of same-sex relationships. The traditional categorical condemnation of same-sex romantic and sexual intimacy is steadily being cast off.

Conservative Christians are likely to see this as a tragic cultural shift away from the teachings of God, and will thus double down in their opposition, calling with renewed urgency for Christians to resist being sucked in by cultural "permissiveness." But these conservative voices, while still strong in most branches of Christianity, are confronting growing opposition from within. More and more Christians are adopting a progressive stance on the topic of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

There has been a long tendency for conservative Christians to paint these internal critics of the traditional view as nothing but sell-outs to secular culture.
For example, a few years back, in an October 2002 Kansas City "Conference on Christian Sexuality," conservative Lutheran theologian John Nestingen framed the debate over homosexuality within the ELCA (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) as a fight between cultural accommodationists and those who hold firm to Christian moral restraint of sexual practice. Here's how he puts it in the opening paragraphs to his talk, "Is There a Law? Lutheranism and Homosexual Practice":

Since cultural sexual standards began to shift in the l960s, the basic approach of Lutherans in the ELCA tradition has been accommodation.  Though proudly part of the larger Catholic consensus, our church has sometimes in official pronouncements, more often willy-nilly, surrendered standards of sexual behavior that have been definitive for the church for two millennia.  
The current presenting issue is homosexual practice.  The issue did not arise out of the larger Christian or a particularly Lutheran agenda, say for instance, a special concern for evangelism among homosexuals.  It is a cultural conflict, a part of an ongoing North American societal undercutting of what were once commonly accepted sexual restraints, the expectation being that the church will continue to accommodate.  The question is if there is anything left in our heritage that holds.  Is concession that only available alternative?  Is there something in the Lutheran tradition that we can and must say to a society bent on liberating the individual from all external restraints?
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling today, I expect that this strategy will become even more rampant among conservative Christians, as they face off against those who would see the Church move in the same direction as the country.

But this way of framing the debate within Christianity betrays either a profound misunderstanding of what is motivating Christians critical of the traditional view, or a willful misrepresentation for the sake of strategic effect. It is not rooted in attention to the actual spirit that has driven Christian opponents of the condemnation of homosexuality for decades--since long before the dominant culture was on the side of reform. It is not rooted in compassionate listening. It is not rooted in truth. 

To put it bluntly, those who portray Christian progressives on this issue as simply selling out to secular culture are either willfully lying about their progressive brothers and sisters or haven't listened closely enough to what they have to say. Whatever conservatives think about today's ruling, it should not inspire them to perpetuate an error. 

Here's the truth about where Christian progressives are coming from: They are motivated by allegiance to the law of of love as it applies to their gay and lesbian neighbors. In other words, their starting point is the fundamental moral commandment laid down by Jesus of Nazareth. They are motivated by fidelity to Jesus' demand that we love our neighbors as ourselves, and they can find no way to fulfill the requirements of this demand while continuing to hold fast to the traditional categorical condemnation of homosexuality. 

Progressives are unimpressed by the quick and easy declaration that we can always "love the sinner while hating the sin." While it is true that we can condemn what really is a sin while continuing to love those who commit the sin, it is not true that we can take just anything to be a sin while continuing to love our neighbors as we should. As I've noted before, anyone who holds that childhood play is a sin will, thereby, be unable to love children as they ought to be loved. And anyone who is motivated by a spirit of love will pay enough attention to children to realize that a prohibition on play would, if followed, be spiritually crushing and hence unloving.

Progressives on this issue within the Christian church have been paying attention to their gay and lesbian neighbors. We (for I am one of them) have seen the spiritually crushing effects of the traditional categorical condemnation. And we have concluded that out of fidelity to the law of love that Jesus lifted up as the very heart of Christian ethical life, we should conclude that Paul's passing remarks about homosexuality may have less to do with divine inspiration than with Paul's (predictable) cultural prejudices. In a clash between a contestable way of approaching the Bible--specifically, in terms of a rather modern doctrine of biblical inerrancy--and fidelity to the law of love, progressives are convinced that one shows greater faith in the God of love, the God who IS love, by cleaving honestly to our clearest understanding of what love requires.

Likewise, old interpretations of natural law theory, formulated by theologians long before we knew much about homosexuality, have to give way to what compassionate attention to our gay and lesbian neighbors teaches us about the demands of love.

You can disagree with progressives, say we are wrong about what love requires or that we are wrong in our priorities (for example, in prioritizing Jesus's injunctions about love above the human doctrine of biblical inerrancy). What you shouldn't do is dismiss Christian progressives as nothing more than sell-outs to secular culture. Because then you ignore the challenge that this perspective puts forward from within the Christian tradition and its values, the challenge that relies on the very heart of Christian ethics.

I hope that, in the wake of today's Supreme Court ruling, Christian discussions and disagreements are not impeded by such mischaracterizations. Yes, Christian progressives are cheering today's ruling. But it's not because they've sold out to secular culture. It's because they are finally seeing the broader secular culture moving--on this issue, at least--in the direction that, in their judgment, the law of love demands.
26 Jun 20:19

Done and Done: Supreme Court invalidates DOMA, Effectively Ends Prop 8 in CA

by bobcargill (@xkv8r)
Sometimes they get one right! And on this occasion, it’s a Double Rainbow all the way! ;-) http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act-paves-way-for-gay-marriage-to-resume-in-california?lite http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/26/195857796/supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act And the decision clears the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California. This debate is certainly not over, but at least now people can enjoy the same marriage rights while we’re having the […]
26 Jun 20:19

Washington National Cathedral celebrates rulings

by Kurt Wiesner

Updated: The bells rang out at Noon Wednesday at the Washington National Cathedral (and other church communities as well): The Washington Post describes the service of thanksgiving that took place in the evening.

Dean Hall has also issued an invitation to all LGBT couples and families to attend a special service tonight, Wednesday, June 26, at 7 p.m. A diverse group of faith leaders will speak out in support of marriage equality at a press conference preceding the prayer service at 5 p.m.

Dean Hall will be joined by:

The Rev. Dr. Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry

The Rev. Dwayne Johnson, senior pastor of Metropolitan Community Church D.C.

Rabbi Jessica Oleon, Temple Sinai

The Rev. Linda Kaufman, Episcopal Diocese of Washington

The National Cathedral's complete press release

Update:

Here is the WaPo story about the liturgy:

The words of Scripture have been used time and again to preach against homosexual unions. But on Wednesday evening at the National Cathedral, the celebrants who sang “alleluia” as a Bible was held high found new meaning in its verses.

They prayed in the words of the prophet Isaiah, who spoke of a God who “strengthens the powerless.”

They prayed in the words of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which tells of an eternal sovereign for “every family in heaven . . . rooted and grounded in love.”

And they offered, perhaps, a new prayer — they thanked God and, in the same breath, they thanked the Supreme Court.

26 Jun 20:19

Synaxarion texts in PO, with links to online texts

by adamcmccollum

Among the volumes of the venerable series Patrologia Orientalis (see a list of online volumes here) are synaxarion texts in Arabic, Armenian, Georgian (see update at the bottom), and Gǝʿǝz. The synaxarion — the collection of shorter or longer notices in commemoration of saints for each day of the church calendar — as it appears in different language-traditions offers both language students and students of the saints a host of reading-material: there are mountains of texts for a great many saints common to all the language-traditions, and these texts may be fruitfully compared with each other philologically, literarily, and otherwise, as well as saints particular to each language-tradition. (For further comparison, one might turn to the Byzantine Synaxarium ecclesiae constantinopolitanum, edited by Delehaye.) To make reference easier to these synaxarion texts from PO, all of which are given in the original language and with a French translation, here is a list according to month and PO volume, with links to the appropriate books at archive.org, where available. The month names are given according to the appropriate language and preceded by their number; for the correspondences of the months, see here from BHO. For more on eastern Christian hagiography, in addition to the volumes mentioned here, see my tagged bibliography, still in progress, here.

Month PO # Editor Online
GƎʿƎZ      
1 Mäskäräm 43.3 Colin  
2 Ṭǝqǝmt 44.1 Colin  
3 Ḫǝdār 44.3 Colin  
4 Taḫśaś I 15.5 Grébaut http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient15pariuoft
4 Taḫśaś II 26.1 Grébaut  
5 Ṭǝrr 45.1 Colin  
6 Yäkkatit 45.3 Colin  
7 Mäggabit 46.3 Colin  
8 Miyazya 46.4 Colin  
9 Gǝnbot 47.3 Colin  
10 Säne 1.5 Guidi http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorien01grafgoog
11 Ḥamle 7.3 Guidi http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient07pariuoft
12 Näḥase and 13 Pagʷämen 9.4 Guidi et al. http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient09pariuoft
Index, annexes 48.3 Colin  
       
       
ARMENIAN      
1 Navasard 5.3 Bayan https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorien05pari
2 Hoṛi 6.2 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient06pariuoft
3 Sahmi 15.3 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient15pariuoft
4 Trē 16.1 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient16pariuoft
5 K’ałoc’ 18.1 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient18pariuoft
6 Arac’ 19.1 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient19pariuoft
7 Mehekan 21.1 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient21pariuoft
8 Areg 21.2 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient21pariuoft
9 Ahekan 21.3 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient21pariuoft
10 Mareri 21.4 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient21pariuoft
11 Margac’ 21.5 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient21pariuoft
12 Hrotic’ and 13 Awelik’ 21.6 Bayan http://www.archive.org/details/patrologiaorient21pariuoft
       
       
ARABIC      
1 Tout and 2 Bāba 1.3 Basset https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorient01pari
3 Hatūr and 4 Kīhak 3.3 Basset https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorient03pariuoft
5 Ṭūba and 6 Amšīr 11.5 Basset https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorient11pariuoft
7 Barmahāt, 8 Barmūda, and 9 Bašuns 16.2 Basset https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorien16pari
10 Baʾūna, 11 Abīb, and 12 Misrá 17.3 Basset https://archive.org/details/patrologiaorient17pariuoft
Additions et corrections; Tables 20.5 Basset   

UPDATE (June 27, 2013): I initially failed to recall Nikolay Marr’s ed. and tr. of an old recension of the Georgian synaxarion: Synaxaire géorgien: Rédaction ancienne de l’union arméno-géorgienne, in PO 19.5, which has texts on Stephen, Peter, and Paul, available here in PDF, and, with the Georgian text only, here from TITUS.


26 Jun 17:43

DOMA unconstitutional; Prop 8 goes away

by Fred Clark

For more than a dozen years, supporters of DOMA, the federal law banning the recognition of same-sex marriages, have advocated a constitutional amendment saying the same thing as that law. Because they knew, and we knew, and everybody knew that DOMA was unconstitutional.

After all, there’s really no point in even bothering with things like laws and rights and constitutions if at any point the majority can just start passing laws denying legal rights to minorities they don’t like.

And now, finally, it’s official: “DOMA Is Unconstitutional; Prop 8 Falls.”

“The Constitution’s guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group,’” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision.

Wonkblog has one of it’s very helpful explainers posted: “The Supreme Court struck down DOMA. Here’s what you need to know.” Dylan Matthews offers a nice overview of what this decision does and does not mean.

From the Human Rights Campaign:

In recent years, California’s Proposition 8 and the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act became symbols of anti-LGBT discrimination around the country and around the world. Today, both crumbled.

In a watershed moment in the fight for equality, the United States Supreme Court today ruled to return marriage equality to California and to strike down DOMA. The court ruled in the Prop 8 case on procedural grounds, not reaching a decision on the merits of Prop 8 or the broader question of whether the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to marry the person you love.

Marriages in California are expected to begin again soon. While a joyous milestone, these victories nonetheless throw into sharp relief the uneven progress for LGBT people around the country — a landscape where states like California are rapidly advancing toward equality, but progress in many other places remains stagnant.

 

26 Jun 17:42

The joy of failed predictions

by Mark Goodacre
So with reference to my previous post, here is the interview question that made me smile when I re-read it.  The interviewer is Jim West, and the interview dates from December 2005:
BB: Who, among academics, would you like to see blogging who isn’t now?
MG: One of the glories of the blogosphere is its surprise nature. You can be really pleasantly surprised by who turns out to be a great and interesting blogger. On the whole the bloggers are all from the margins still, younger scholars, independent scholars, graduate students. To take the country I know best, the UK, for example, I know of no blog belonging to anyone with a chair. In that scene, I’d love to see Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, Philip Esler, Francis Watson, Maurice Casey, Christopher Rowland, Judith Lieu, Jimmy Dunn, John Barclay, and all the rest of the top brass blogging, but you and I know that that is never going to happen. So my basic answer is that I would like to see more of the top brass blogging, but I really doubt that it is going to happen. In the USA, I would have the same doubts about the top brass too. One recently retired, world famous NT scholar told me that he had never even knowingly visited a website. Many scholars, even now, have not even heard of blogs and blogging, and some who have have no idea that there are blogs in the Biblical Studies area. (Emphasis added).
I love my certainty about something that turned out to be wrong.  Not only does Larry Hurtado now have a well-loved and popular blog, but several others that I mentioned have also been involved with the blogs, including Richard Bauckham and Francis Watson.  And here in the USA, I never would have imagined that Bart Ehrman would end up blogging, albeit behind a paywall.

Now that we have some of the top brass blogging, it does make Jim's 2005 question worth asking again.  Who would we like to see blogging who isn't now?

Update (11.49am):  Still looking through biblioblogs.com, I am impressed by Jim Davila's answer to a similar question, a month later, in January 2006, just after his revelation about The Waltons:
BB: What do you see blogs becoming in the future?
JD: In the short run, I think that blogs will become ever easier to use and more and more common. I hope many more of our colleagues in biblical studies and related fields will start blogs. The long run is harder to predict, because our technological base is improving exponentially and it’s hard to tell what new resources it’s going to offer us. In general, as I’ve said before in my SBL Forum article and again my recent SBL paper in Philadelphia, I think that blogging is “an early and primitive manifestation of what will become the ubiquitous media presence of the individual.” In other words, over the long term we will all become more and more connected together through the far more sophisticated offspring of what we now call the Internet, and our connections to it and to each other will be less and less obtrusive and more and more natural and taken for granted. Big Media (what bloggers call, often disparagingly, “mainstream media”) will still have an important place, but it will become more and more interactive. Two-way communication between it and individuals and groups — all of whom ultimately will occupy the same, um, medium — will make Big Media much more readily and swiftly self-correcting than it is today and will present us with a media continuum with Big Media at one end and the individual on the other and every imaginable permutation of group-size in between.
That’s my guess, anyway.
I particularly love "I think that blogging is 'an early and primitive manifestation of what will become the ubiquitous media presence of the individual.'"


26 Jun 14:23

A Sea Change in Jesus Studies: Fare Thee Well, Ipsissima Verba! - Le Donne

by ..............
My introduction to historical Jesus studies was in the mid-Nineties.  For those of you who measure by “Quests”, this was the height of the so-called “Third Quest”. Consider this selection of titles written from 1989 to 1994: Meyer’s Critical Realism and the New Testament, Borg’s Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, Dunn’s Jesus, Paul, and the Law, Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, Meier’s A Marginal Jew: Vol. 1, Dahl’s Jesus the Christ, N.T. Wright’s New Testament and the People of God, Evans’ Life of Jesus Research, Horsley’s Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, Sanders’ The Historical Figure of Jesus. And the list goes on.

In 1994, I took my first academic courses in Biblical Studies.  I took a class on the “Old Testament” and I took a class called “Jesus Seminar”.  In the latter, I attended a handful of lectures and voting sessions at the Flamingo Hotel in Santa Rosa (the longtime meeting place of the Jesus Seminar fellows). I was too naïve at the time to know how celebrated/infamous this group was. It wasn’t like Salmon Rushdie was presenting or anything.

At this stage in Jesus studies (for some), it was still perfectly acceptable to argue that a dominical saying contained the very words of Jesus, or the ipsissima verba Jesu. (I also took my first Latin class in 1994; volo condeco fervens puella… seemed like a good idea at the time.)  In other words, some of the words in red, translated rigidly, conveyed what Jesus said word for word.  As the popular narrative goes, the Jesus Seminar didn’t employ many of those red beads. But it wasn’t like the red beads were untouched. Ipsissima verba was a live possibility in 1994.  

But here in 2013, this is not the case.


In one of my favorite books, Stories with Intent (2008), Snodgrass writes that “as virtually anyone studying the Gospels grants, we do not have the ipsissima verba, the very words of Jesus” (p.33ff).  Here Snodgrass (crediting James Dunn) is simply reflecting a contemporary consensus.  Similarly, Dale Allison’s recent successes have heralded the triumph of ipsissima vox.  In other words, we can (in some cases) hear the “voice” of Jesus in those red letters.  The crucial difference is that the vox position points to the red letters and says that Jesus probably taught something like this at some point.  A move toward this position can already been seen in the work of Jeremias, Robinson, et al in the 1950s, but there was no consensus even in the 1990s.  Today, even the maximalists among us are seemingly content to argue for a general “authenticity” of voice rather than exact phraseology.  Finally, the emphasis on "memory" in post-Third Quest Jesus research only reinforces this sea change.


So when did this change?  It seems that ipsissima verba just slipped quietly into the night. But are there any holdouts among professional historical Jesus scholars?

26 Jun 14:02

My SBL presentation on the Reception of Mark

by Mike K.

If you are going to SBL in St. Andrews coming up soon (July 7-11), I hope you will be interested in my session (and plenty of other interesting stuff below:  how to figure out the Didache’s or Ireneaeus’ handling of biblical texts, the use of the Colossians’ Christ hymn in later Christological controversies, or  Origen’s thoughts on castration!):

10-27


Biblical Interpretation in Early Christianity
7/10/2013
3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Room: Seminar Room 3 – Gateway (18)

Theme: Text, Citation, and Interpretation in Early Christianity

David Wilhite, Baylor University, Presiding
Jonathan A. Draper, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Text and Interpretation of the Old Testament in the Didache (25 min)
Michael Kok, University of Sheffield
The Ambivalent Patristic Reception of Mark (25 min)
Ben Haupt, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church
Irenaeus’ Citations of Scripture: Intentional or Careless Alterations? (25 min)
Break (30 min)
Jennifer Otto, McGill University
“And There Are Eunuchs Who Have Made Themselves Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom of Heaven”: Origen’s Exegetical Strategies in His Commentary on Matt 19:12 (25 min)
Justin A. Mihoc, University of Durham
Church Beginnings in the Interpretation of the Church: Early Traces of Reception and Patristic Interpretation of Acts 1–5 (25 min)
Jennifer Strawbridge, University of Oxford
As He Does in All His Letters (2 Pet 3:15): The Use Col 1:15-20 by Early Christian Writers (25 min)

Here is my abstract:

Despite the nearly unanimous patristic opinion that the evangelist Mark was the interpreter of Peter, recent studies on the Rezeptionsgeschichte [reception history] of Mark have revealed the ambivalent reception of the second canonical Gospel among its earliest interpreters (cf. Schildgen 1999; Braun 2010; Sim 2011; Head 2012). Of the four canonical Gospels, Mark is by far the least represented in terms of patristic citations, extant manuscripts or traditional commentaries. Not only was Mark seen as deficient because it lacked the infancy and resurrection narratives and much of the didactic material of the other Gospels, which might explain Papias’s comment about Mark’s lack of order (taxis) (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15), but I will propose that the patristic reluctance to appeal to Mark was that it was too easily amenable to readings supporting an adoptionist Christology. This can be demonstrated from both the scribal changes to the text of Mark (cf. Ehrman 1993) and the explicit comment of Irenaeus that those who separated Jesus from the heavenly Christ had an exclusive preference for Mark (Adv. Haer. 3.11.7).


26 Jun 11:56

Two phrases I like to see together: ‘Creation Museum’ and ‘Financial Trouble’

by PZ Myers

We’ve been getting rumblings about this for some time now: Ken Ham’s Creation “Museum” is struggling. This is not surprising. It’s initial success was due to novelty and capitalizing on controversy, but all of that is fading.

In a developing story from Kentucky, the Creation Museum is running out of money due to declining attendance, bringing their “Ark Encounter” project to a stand-still because of a lack of funding.

Interestingly, the reason for the slowing traffic seems to be creationism itself, since the main exhibit has literally not changed in 5 years. Most museums’ exhibits change as new discoveries are made, as artifacts travel from other museums to visit, or as adjustments in scientific thinking are made.

Another reason could be the demographic that creationism’s proponents target.

Mark Joseph Stern from Slate.com writes:

A spectacle like the Creation Museum has a pretty limited audience. Sure, 46 percent of Americans profess to believe in creationism, but how many are enthusiastic enough to venture to Kentucky to spend nearly $30 to see a diorama of a little boy palling around with a vegetarian dinosaur? The museum’s target demographic may not be eager to lay down that much money: Belief in creationism correlates to less education, and less education correlates to lower income.

In hopes to draw repeat customers, the museum has added zip-lining and sky bridge courses to their attractions this summer. But when confronted by critics who wonder what the zip-lining and sky bridge attractions have to do with the museum’s message, Mike Zovath, the museums co-founder and vice president, says that the extra activities are irrelevant.

The Ark Encounter is a similar desperate ploy to grab attention — it’s true that you have to spend money to make money, but they’re in the position now of having to pour more wealth into their enterprise than they can get out of it. It’s doomed to the fate of Holy Land USA and Heritage USA.

I’d tell you to go now while you still can, but I don’t want to give it a blip of attendance…it’s time to let it die a peaceful, natural death.