An Old Find: What does the Old Testament have to offer the Church/Individual

written May 5, 2008, from my second semester. I thought it would be cool to post something from the end of my first year here to see how i match up with it at the end of my last year. surprisingly, i still agree! enjoy!

Discussion Paper: What does the Old Testament have to offer the Church/Individual?

The Old Testament has much to offer the church and humanity in general. This paper will first define what the Old Testament is, make a modern parallel and then explain what it has to offer the modern reader.

The Old Testament is a collection of theological myths and stories from the Israelite nation. These are historical books but not histories. The writers of these stories are reflecting on their history and trying to find both reasons and God’s role in their events. What then could we compare this to? Surely nothing in our modern context would be like this as we’re concerned with facts, not myths!

But we are. I think my first book will be called, The Bible of America; Holy Myths and Fiction of American History. From George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, to the life of a cowboy, we are steeped in myth and urban legends. Stories like Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed, John Henry, Calamity Jane and Annie Oakley are American myths. These characters are told to us in our childhood and teach us about what our country holds dear. These stories do have a historical basis, but the myths and folklore add to that basis and bring out what is true about America. We even have myths about our founding fathers! Stories of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams abound, even though we have their original letters that dispel many of these myths. The Old Testament does this same thing for the nation of the Israelites.

The stories we hold tell a lot about us. The fact that we hold stories shows that we’re not too far removed from our ancient brothers and sisters. We try to make sense of the world through stories. Reading the Old Testament this year has shown me that we have some very similar concerns and reactions to our day to day living. The concerns are the same: how to raise a family, how to live “right”, what concerns are worth having, what cultural identity means, will our culture be over run by another and such like. The expressions of those concerns are what separate us from our ancient brothers and sisters. There is also word choice (Bible is patriarchic and largely misogynist), context (we have the internet and are not farmers, etc), history (we Americans were the underdog but now are the empire, Israeli’s were largely the underdog), and other such matters that separate us as well, but the similarities are still amazing to behold.

Some look at the Old Testament and say it only supports the New. I can see the argument here but remind those supporters that the New was written with the Old in mind, not the other way around. Some look at it and see a culture rife with violence and sexism. Turning on American TV, I see the same thing. Our culture is just as violent as theirs, if not more so. Others would say that these people are barbaric and legalistic. I would counter that the complexities of our laws vastly out-weigh the TANAK’s "legalism." We are just as much victims of circumstance as they are. Some look at it and see a bunch of stories with no facts. I would say that the facts don’t always hold the truth. When we see the connection between our ancestors and our modern context, we are engaged in a holy activity. We recognize our connection to the past in hopes of figuring out our future. We are then able to see God’s work in both.

Heaven or Why I am a Universalist

I had a great conversation this summer with my friend and seminary colleage Sally... and then now with Jason posting about heaven and hell and Julia's inquiry as to what i think about the here-after, i figured i'd post a kinda-comprehensive view of the afterlife. This of course is going off the assumption that there is an afterlife and also through the Christian-lens. So here it goes.

largely, we have no idea what happens on the other side. i see the scriptures as mainly pretaining to the here and now and the work of bring about God's kin-dom to earth. but this leads to the idea that there is a kin-dom already in existence and it must be brought here.


there is an intense dualism here, as Jay pointed out, that if there is a kin-dom of heaven, there must also be an opposite. some believe that there is a hell and satan who is fighting to bring that to earth, while others think that we're already in hell. i don't think so. i think we're in creation, we have a great deal of free will and we screw up a lot yet learn from it. for me the world is getting better, not worse. as we learn, we do better. but what about those who don't? what if you die and get there and see God face to face and are forgiven? prodical son remember? it's not about book keeping it's about forgiveness and uncomprehensible grace. like the parable of the workers in Matt 20:1-16. those who have been working longer are paid the same as those who showed up in the last five minutes. grace isn't fair. and if we are free to choose God in this life, it stands to reason that we're free to choose or deny in the next.

John 3:16-21 talks about how Jesus doesn't condemn the world but save it... so if you have to be a Christian to do this then mathmatically, Jesus condemned the world because there are more nonChristians in the world than Christians, and more dead nonChristians than Christians (sometimes at the hands of Christians, but that's another story). unless "those who love the light" can be ppl who follow God under a different name.. because since Jesus is God and if one would worship God, then you believe in Christ byproxy because of the Three-in-one deal we have going on. so everyone gets in... but not everyone will choose it. Hell for me, would be those who can't accept, even after meeting God face-to-face, that they are loved.

it was by reading the scriptures that i got to this point... it was what made me break from my Catholic upbringing. because if it's all about "Believing" then what? which way is right, protestant or catholic? and then which one of those? what if the Unitarians are right and there is just one God and Jesus ain't it like we think (i.e. no Trinity?). i was told my mom was going to hell by my priest during mass.. i walked out. later, i was told that all protestants were going to hell because they aren't "right". and when you visit the catholic church, you have to not only be a Catholic, but a PRACTICING one to take communion. this is anti-inclusion to the extreme. the liturgy of the RC church is the most unwelcoming to visitors precisely because they think they have it and don't need to be of service. however, they miss something.... all of this "right and wrong" has everything to do with RELIGION and NOTHING to do with Christ. who is Christ's brothers and sisters? those who do the will of his Father! (Matt 12:50). and that is to love their neighbor and God with heart mind and strength. plus Jesus never asked the sinners, prostitutes, adulterers, or lepers to first believe in him before he healed them. he just did.

as Robert Capon states: "Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is the proclamation of the end of religion, not of a new religion, or even of the best of all religions. ...If the cross is the sign of anything, it's the sign that God has gone out of the religion business and solved all of the world's problems without requiring a single human being to do a single religious thing. What the cross is actually a sign of is the fact that religion can't do a thing about the world's problems - that it never did work and it never will."

2 Corinthians 5:21. "He made him who knew no sin to become sin for our sakes. . . ." The job is done. The church doesn't preach that, though. It's always saying the job is done; but then it insists you have to cooperate with that job before it will be done for you. Wrong! It is done for you. It has been done for you. It's all done for you. Trust it. i seems to me that we're too hung up on trying to get ppl to fear hell to become Christian. this is the wrong step! it is the joy of being Christian that inspires conversion, not the fear of hell yet every preacher i hear seems to be SOOOO hung up on hell and salvation, describing the levels of hell in great detail "as if they spent several years in that commonwealth" (Erasmus). Jesus gave no systematic or geographical map of hell. so forget what you know about this as this is not the Good News. i was too hung up on this issue of damnation and think i drove too many from the faith when i was younger.. now i understand the WAY.. namely Christ. How did Jesus act? what did he do? did he run around saying "you're all gonna burn?" NO! There are some harsh words, but they are directed at those who think they have a handle on who is in and who is out.

When Jesus told his parables to the people, his disciples asked, why do you talk to them in riddles? And his answer was: "So they won't catch on. Because anything they could catch on to would be the wrong thing. As Isaiah said, seeing they don't see and hearing they don't hear, neither do they understand [Matthew 13:10-17]. That's why I talk to them like this: because I don't want them to have little lights go on in their heads. I want to put out all the lights they've got, so that in the darkness they can listen to me"

the parables basically give us is stuff we can't stand to hear. Take the Lost Sheep. What we want to hear is that the lost have to find themselves first and then come back to God. Wrong. All you've got to be is lost. Not fancily lost. Not ethically lost. Just plain lost. Likewise, all you've got to do to be raised from the dead is to be dead. Not uprightly dead or piously dead. Just dead.

so does this make me a pluralist? kinda. i see God at work in others.. like my brothers and sisters that are agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish. these ppl live the gospel whether they know it or not. i think Christ would have a lot to talk about with these people as well saying "i totally get that.. did you happen to read this passage? that's what i was talking about and you embody that!" to some extent it is "Christ by any other name..." but it's not an empty pluralism. there are unique things to each tradition, each philosophy has something i can affirm. however, i firmly believe that God as revealed through Christ (note: NOT Paul) loves and calls all ppl to Godself and heaven will simply be a matter of "i can't believe you love me God, but i tried to follow as best i knew how and what made sense in my context.... i accept your grace and forgiveness, please accept and forgive my disbelief and sins."

when you read the teachings of Buddha or Mohammed, you'll see how different their ethics and goals are. there are similarities, like Buddha's nonattachment is similar to Jesus' and Mohammed is all about submission to God's will, much like Jesus too. however, the end results aren't the same. Jesus wants to create heaven on earth and justice for all (esp. the poor, outcast, widowed, orphaned, etc) where as Mohammed seems more like a centralized Theocratic dictatorship (with him at the head as VOICE of Allah) and Buddha's ethic of service seems selfish as it's only about self-enlightenment. nirvana is nice, but i prefer heaven. Buddha is atheist, i believe that all of existence came from the Source, i.e. God. Jesus was Jewish, but we are a branch grafted onto that tree (Romans), but not entirely the same, plus the resulting years of oppression and persecution hasn't helped Judeo-Christian relations... but i firmly believe that there is a ton we can learn from our brothers and sisters... we do not supercede them, we have a different take on the TaNaK plus an appendix they don't have. we also don't have the midrash, Talmud, and many other traditions and cultures so vital to the Jewish faith. we Christians can learn a ton! anywho, i feel that all religious that are honestly followed and that are generous hearted are on the right track and are a great good to the world. the wrong-hearted religions have ppl blowing themselves up, starting wars, and calling others names, and that's not the type of religion, regardless of the name, that i'll support. intolerance will not be tolerated.

so what does this mean for Christians here and now? namely to serve some more! we are called to make disciples out of all nations, and we've done that. if you count up the scriptures though, we are to serve and forgive, and to serve.. not for conversion's sake... if we preach the Good News and it's not accepted, "we knock the dust from our sandles and move on" (Luke 9:5) without promising condemnation or judgment. i'm not friends with ppl from other religions to convert them, that is a dishonest friendship, a house built on sand.

Grace is grace, it has happened, all are forgiven. all things are being made new! this is cause for celebration! not war, injustice, and damnation (as those wouldn't be Good News). i hope the church can awaken to this idea, repent of their sins against other religions and against the Gospel, and bring a new era of "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven."

blah blah blah! ;-) there is more to say... but i'm interested in what you think. let me know!

Bias & Culture

pulling largely from a lecture given by Nestor Medina here at LTS, i think it's time to talk about Bias and Culture.

lots of talk about culture, but how best can we define it?

there's many ways, i'll attempt to define it here and then discuss what it means to COEXIST.

Culture is 1. a sum total of rules that shape belief, communication, and thinking, 2. refers to particular ways of thinking, acting, and organizing aspects of housing, technology, art, family dynamics, and science, 3. gives coherence and totality in relation to the rest of the world and is transmitted from one generation to the next.

or as my Giradian buddy Bryce would define it: culture is what keeps you from retributively killing people.

example of two cultures coming together: A Danish man and Egyptian man go to play a game of billards. When asked (by a third party) how good they are at billards the Dane replies "I've played before" and the Egyptian replies "I'm very good at this game." Both exhibit their culture... Danish culture values humility where Egyptian culture values embellishment. Imagine the surprise and potential conflict when the Dane throughly thrashes the Egyptian.

now based on these definitions and this understanding of "culture" i would say that one cannot get outside of one's cultural bias. here are some ways of thinking about culture historically in terms of one's "Holy Scriptures" according to the Medina lecture:

Acculturation: Taking a book from another culture and placing it in one's own: i.e. the Bible is Angelo (although it was written by the Hebrews amid their pressures from Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman Cultures). or as Yael pointed out, the Christians claiming the Torah as THEIRS but largely ignoring and dismissing it.

Enculturation: Our way of thinking is the best! The Qu'ran is Arabic therefore one must be Arabic to be Muslim or the Gospel is Angelo Culture, therefore one must become Angelo to be Christian. This is a false assumption and we've seen the effects on the world in missionaries and Colonial though processes.

Inculturation: Use resonate images to convert other cultures. You guys believe in charity? WE DO TOO! Here's where our scriptures are doing what y'all already are. This is apologetics and falsely thinks that the scripture can be removed from the culture.

Interculturation: Naming own culture specifically and seeing the positives and negatives. i believe this is the best way. when we talk about things, it's best to say "As a white, progressive Christian i see this issue this way" or "As an atheist woman" or "as a Muslim from Egypt" here it helps either party figure out how best to frame the interaction and the friction that occurs from both parties involved.

this is important to do as we're making assumptions about the other... what we should do is to name our assumptions from the get go, question the person we are in dialogue with, and let the "other" fill in their own blanks. for example, when coming to me and knowing that i'm a christian, don't think i'm a creationist, or think the Bible is THE word of GOD, or that i send other faiths to hell. i don't hold either belief as i believe in evolution and that the word of God is in the Bible amid the cultural bias and baggage.

Why I don't like "Biblical" Anything

A while back, I gave my Thoughts on Biblical Maculinity in response to Brad over at Confessions of a Seminarian. I get really bothered anytime someone tries to label something "Biblical" like "I believe in Biblical masculinity/feminism/marriage/family values/ethics/etc."

I touched on this discomfort in that post, but it wasn't fully articulated. I will try to do that here.

ONe of the hardest problems is interpreting the Bible to our modern context. some will say "The Bible doesn't need interpreting, you just read what's written" advocating a literal interpretation. I will now say that the majority of the people who say this ARE NOT reading the bible literally, but traditionally. Just take Christmas for example... the innkeeper who tells Mary and Joe to hit up the manger, Mary remaining a virgin and not having any children OR sex, that there are 3 wisemen, and Jesus is raised to be a carpenter in Nazareth are NOT in the Bible! Those are traditions PLACED on the Bible... Sola Scriptura indeed.

Plus we need to look at the social structures assumed in the Bible and ask, are an essential part of God's revelation? We no longer live in a world of absolute monarchies, slavery, tribal and clan warfare, patriarchy nor animal sacrifice in their ancient Middle Eastern forms. Instead of an agrarian world we're urban, instead of assumed male superiority there is women's rights movements, instead of absolute monarchy democracy is a pervasive ideal, instead of an all-encompassing religious, economic, political and social legal system we have patchwork of laws that govern different aspects of life.

The story of God in the Bible is inseparable from an understanding of the kind of society Israel was meant to be nor can God not be removed from Israel's context and view of the world.

However, look at how progressive Israel despite the context! Within the context of slavery, Israel was to free all slaves and give them a nest egg every 7 years (Duet 15). within monarchy, they knew how this system would be a form of oppression (1 Sam 8) and there's no greater king than God (2 Sam 12). In an agricultural economy, Israel was to ensure everyone had a fair share of the wealth and resources (Lev 25). Within the context of patriarchy and polygamy, Israel was to protect the rights of women (Duet 21:10-14; 22:13-29).

How do we bridge the 2,000+ year gap? I would say the last thing we need to do is recreate the context of ancient Israel! We can't get out of our own symbols and cultural context and we read Israel's story and Jesus' story through our own cultural experience. We CAN'T apply the Bible literally because we'd ultimately being applying our own bias and prejudices. Our experience is not on a higher plain than the scriptures but it is our beginning and ending.

We cannot approach the Bible as a narrow rule book that sets out models of behavior for every single circumstance. What does the Bible say about a flat tire on the side of the highway? What does the Bible say about interacting with societies completely alien from your own? Some stuff, surely, but the application isn't exact. Every time we pick up the Bible there needs to be serious consideration of context, culture, and other communal structures.

Combining the story of the Bible with the story of our culture in such a way that our praxis becomes the product of wisdom. There is no easy way nor one way to accomplish this. There are aspects of the Bible in everything we do because we are a saturated culture, however, calling something like it's the authoritive BIBLICAL anything is just patently untrue and makes for bad marketing.

We Make the Noises

i have been recently called an agnostic-Christian. i've been told that I have no business behind a pulpit and that "I'm responsible for every soul i lead astray by not teaching the gospel." To this I say "The only thing i have is my personal responsiblity. I'm responsible to the gospel and my interpretation of it." That's the whole point!

INTERPRETATION.

We all have it, we all use it... why? Because the Bible doesn't SAY anything! it requires us to read it and interpret what it means to us.

i'm reminded on a joseph campbell story about a tribe in australia whose social order was maintained with the aid of bullroarers. those are long flat boards with a couple of slits cut in them and a rope tied at one end. they are swung around over one's head and the low humming sound is other worldly. when the gods were angry they would sound the bullroarers in the woods at night... no one in the tribe knew this of course. the males of the tribe would explain why the gods were angry and what behavior had to change.

in the initiation rite of young men into manhood in the tribe is very violent and bloody. it's culmination is the revelation to the boy by the cheif priest of "We make the noises"

and we do. however i tend to look at the similarities and the shear fact that you and i are here on this planet... as it could have been otherwise. we are made of stardust and tied to the universe. life on earth is very linked and intraconnected. authoritative claims take away this connection and the church has been a large part of this.

so this leads me to think that there's something behind it all... some higher order behind the chaos. i call this something God. which leads me to a different take on the incarnation... what if we are the incarnated universe trying to figure itself out?

so with that in mind we're called to wrestle and figure it out not make super vague claims like "Jesus is the answer PERIOD" like the fundamentalists or say "There is no god" like the stalwart atheists have in my experience. in my experience, i feel that both the fundies and the atheists i've talked to are inherently ignorant about this take on spirituality. i could be wrong and i'd be more than happy to be!

we are making noises to try to understand the infinite. we are putting up boundaries on something that cannot be bound and what we place there should only be looked through into the grand divine.

You can make all the dogmas and doctrines you want, the divine won't be contained.

It's knocking over fences, crossing property lines.



related posts: SVS on 'aChristians'- Yes I coined it...

KT's excellent Poem in her post Where Should We Go? pretty much sums up this rant.

Who I think Paul was...

In the last post, i asked Who Was Paul? Here i'll provide a short answer to this complex question. Thank you to all who commented, I loved reading your posts and saw where each of y'all were coming from. It helped me write this post, so thank you again. Let me know what you think of this!

Was Paul: 1. The Preacher of salvation by grace from the burden of the Law?

2. The Preacher who proclaimed God's reign by breaking through in Christ the Messiah of Israel?

3. Was he a social conservative that opted for celebacy and temperance based on the teachings of Christ?

4. Was he a social radical that opted for a new, liberative lifestyle based on the teachings of Christ?

Paul was all of these things but none of them completely. He had a lot to say about grace, he seems conservative in a few spots, like in the Pastorals, but yet radical in Corinthians. I will, however, focus on Paul as a “Preacher who proclaimed God’s reign by breaking through in Christ the Messiah of Israel. I lean this way because of the letters to the Galatians and Romans.

Through Christ the law is fulfilled. The law was like a nanny that watched over the world and without it Paul would not have known sin. But Christ makes God’s grace known and levels the field as Gentiles and Jews, once separated, are now grafted together onto one tree. God promised that all people will be blessed through Abraham, and Christ fulfills that promise. The law of Moses is still valid in Paul’s eyes, but is now beside the point as if you “put on the mind of Christ” you are doing the law.

When Paul talks about the Law, there are some inaccuracies. Inaccuracies are always occurring in marketing, and Paul is a marketer of Christ to the Gentiles. This happens in our modern times too as the new Apple notebook doesn’t use less power than a 25 watt light bulb (unless it’s in sleep mode) nor is the law slavery like Paul would have us interpret it in Galatians when he brings up the Sarah and Hagar story. His interpretation is way off the mark, however, it is written to Gentiles and this Paul’s inaccuracy has a point. Namely, Gentiles don’t have to first become Jewish to experience the Reign of God in Jesus Christ… One simply needs to follow Christ, period.

Who Was Paul?

I used to think St. Paul was a jerk. I couldn't stand him or what I perceived to be his theology. After my 'Paul and the Early Church' class taught by Greg Carey, i'm now having second thoughts. I used to think Paul as a lot like this picture (photographed by yours truly from the Sacred Heart Catholic Church on the corner of Walnut and Nevin here in Lancaster) just giving people the bird and telling them they're going to hell. i've come to think a little differently of Paul but still am trying to articulate that thought. for your help, i'd love to know what you make of Paul! who was he?

To help, here are the 4 legacies usually assigned to Paul by today's scholars. Was he:

The Preacher of salvation by grace from the burden of the Law?

The Preacher who proclaimed God's reign by breaking through in Christ the Messiah of Israel?

Was he a social conservative that opted for celebacy and temperance based on the teachings of Christ?

Was he a social radical that opted for a new, liberative lifestyle based on the teachings of Christ?

I'll hold my opinion until after i write this paper! but i'd love to hear what y'all think, so rawk and roll!!!

The Bible Is NOT A Clobbering Tool

The Bible is not a clobbering tool... even though it has been used as such. the Bible is not a guiness book of world records or an indexed compedium, nor is it ammo! The Bible is a book of mysteries. Jesus wrote nothing. Biblical authority can't be understood nor is it at the heart of the dispute. The main argument is what the readers are bringing to the texts. what are people putting onto the Bible?

For one the whole idea of how the Bible is against homosexuality or that Jews and Christians should regard it as a sin is something people PUT ONTO the Bible. The Bible doesn't say this, people CLAIM it does. They are bringing to the text their understanding of sexual preference. Ancient people had no idea of preference, nor did people really think about it until Freud started thinking about it. The actual term HOMOSEXUAL is only 100 years old. Invented in 1892 by Charles Gilbert Chaddock and heterosexuality wasn't coined until 8 years later. Prior to that was the term "sexual inversion" which referred to not just same gender relations, but also to any nonconformity to gender roles I.E. political aspirations in women or men who like cats.

So what? Well for one there is no term that is a direct equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek... so not only does the Bible not address the issue, IT CAN'T. it simply doesn't have the language. but there are some passages that refer to same gender sexual ACTS (not homosexuality in the modern sense). The Greek term arsenokoites is as close as one can get but it is rare and of uncertain meaning.

Mark Jordan argues that we're missing the point anyway! here we're not argue'n about homosexuality, we're actually argue'n about what the Bible says.. the argument is over how to interpret the Bible.

I would argue that Jesus did infact give us some guidelines here. Take for example the parable in the mustard seed in Mt 13:31-32. traditionally interpreted this parable is about we have the same "seed" of the kingdom, the Word of God which starts small then all the birds roost in this big tree's branches. that's such a nice poetic parable. but how would a first century jew interpret this story? In stating that this man planted a mustard seed in his garden, the hearers are alerted to the fact that he was doing something illegal. Mustard was considered a weed!! An unclean image thus becomes the starting point for Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God in this parable. what Jesus was saying is that people are always trying to weed out the kingdom of God and this kingdom will keep popping up in unexepected places.

So we need to bring this into our lives as Christians. Find divinity where it isn't supposed to be; in humor, in secular, and in our LGBT brothers and sisters. We are to form lives and see Jesus in others. Worship is a theatre of lived possibility.. and guess what? Sexual desire is in the kingdom of God! We must work to deliver the gift of erotic back to the church. The church doesn't have a homosexual problem.. it has a sexual one. We must strive to be ethical in our sexuality, whichever MODERN definition we fall under.

Post Trackbacks: For the Bible Tells Me So

Duality in 4 Sentences

1.We are either using the bible as a mirror or a portal.

2.The mirror reflects our own prejudices back on us and we act accordingly.

3.If we use it as a portal we are called to transform and leave our comfort-zone.

4.Using the Matrix: we are either Agent Smith (hates humans and is destroyed by his
hate) or we are Neo (who sees how far the rabbit whole goes.)



Futher Reading:
De-Conversion on "Myth of Bible-based Family Values"

SocietyVS on "Keeping the Faith by Losing It"

Faith Journeys: The Harsh Words in the Bible

Thoughts on Biblical Masculinity

Confessions had a few posts on Bibilical Masculinity and Why Men Aren't in Church that pretty much confused me.

Despite their well-intended post, I can't get over the fact that they continue to reinforce out-moded gender roles. Their ideas that men are protectors and the supposed "head of the house" and women have feminized the church to irrelevence I can't handle. It's this Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus crap that we really need to transcend.

So what do i have to offer to this besides criticism? Well two things, Carl Jung and Tao philosophies.

Jung states that the process of socialization has distorted all of us into incomplete beings. He claims all psychological maladies are in some form or another related to this distortion. He argues that men are socialized to suppress those dimensions of their humanity that our culture assigns to women (and vice versa).

The ancient Tao philosophy of Ying and Yang adds to this. Yin is akin to the feminine traits and Yang are masculine. We can achieve holistic health when yin and yang are in perfect balance with each other.

Tony Campolo uses these Jungian gender theory and Yin/Yang philosophy to illustrate Perfect Balance Illustration in John 8:1-11: The Pharisees drag out an adulterus woman before Jesus and remind him that Moses' law would have the woman stoned to death for her sins. The Pharisees were testing Jesus to see how literal he took the scriptures or if compassion would win out.

Jesus stoops down and writes something in the dirt and says "Let one who is without sin throw the first stone." We have no idea what he could have written, but many scholars have suggested that it could be the names of those in the crowd who were guilty of the same sin (Campolo, Anderson, Trible). The group disperses and Jesus tells the stunned woman "Go and sin no more."

In this story Jesus perfectly balances the masculine yang concern of "Theology and abstract thinking" with the feminine yin concern of "social justice and defending the downtrodden."

So this scraps the idea of men at the head of the household in terms of a more democractic team. If I told my wife that I was the head, she'd laugh and then she'd prolly let me try to prove it and we'd be in debt in a month (love you babe! no need to prove it!).

Where in scripture can i support this since 1 Tim. 2:11-12 says for women to shut up and submit to men. First I'd throw out the standard Gal. 3:28 passages saying that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female as all are one in Christ Jesus." Then i would state that in Acts 2, the Holy Spirit came down on all and that 1 Tim was written to a group of women that were drunk with their new found power to speak to a group and they were prolly airing dirty laundry about their husbands. Paul wants to remind them that ALL learners must remain silent in the ancient Jewish world and this rule still applies.

Tony states in his book "Speaking my Mind" states that those who want to lead are to be the servants (Mark 9:35) and Eph. 5:22-25 makes the ideal Christian marriage then looks like this: Wife to Husband, "Honey, my dreams and aspirations are not as important as yours. I'm willing to sacrifice all that I am to help you live out your dreams and full-fill God's calling in your life."

Husband to Wife, "Oh, no! It's the other way around!"

Thus they have their first fight. Wouldn't that be lovely? Tony rules! Get the book and balance your yin and yang!

Why is Satan Evil?

I don't beleive in Satan... I believe in evil, but that evil is NOT Satan.

There WAS no satan in Hebrew cosmology until the PERSIANS came (as they have a good god/evil god thing going on, the Jews had ONE God from whom both good and evil came from: Job 2:9-10, Isaiah 45:7). however, satan isn’t bad…

i don’t see a belief relavent in jewish tradition to warrent such a poor reading of Ha Satan, the Accuser and tester of Mankind (in Job). God sends HA Satan in jewish tradition to test the faithfullness of man and help God judge accordingly. God is merciful and satan is like the prosecutor in a court room. this doesn’t make Satan inherently evil.

There is no biblical record of the “fall of Satan” in oral or written tradition. it took the Christian church 200 years to come about a doctrine of ‘Satan the devil.' Unless there's a apocryphal book that i'm unaware of, I'd say that this story is completely non-biblical.

There are a few references in the gospels, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” from Luke 10:17. I think what Jesus is saying here is people with a strong faith in God cannot fail and satan falls. however, there is no tradition or hebrew understanding as Satan being evil until this line. It’s like saying “that guy is an einstien” (title). then saying “no, really, that guy is Einstien!” (name). THEN saying “i saw Einstien falling like lighting” which makes no sense.

The other famous ones from Jesus' 40 days in the desert and telling Peter to "get behind him" all deal with temptation and that's in line with the current Jewish thought about ha-satan.

Believing in Satan as evil is rather unfounded. I just don’t support for it until the gospels, and even that scholars have been scratching their heads about the purpose and lead up for this… I think it’s just another example of a duelistic doctrine no one wants to question because it’s easy and convenient.

Rule of Three:

Book: Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell
Music: Walking on Air by Kerli
Movie: Wall*E by far the most christian movie you'll ever see this year (or ever!). Inherent laziness of humans, love conquers all, and salvation by the societal misfits. It RAWKS!

Grammar?!

I've talked on here in the past about how difficult translation in the Bible is (The Possibilities of Each Word). When you throw in punctuation, it's a whole new ball game.

Some examples from Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss:
"Verily, I say unto thee, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." vs.
"Verily I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
from Luke 23:43

Isaiah 40:3
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord." vs.
"The voice of him that crieth: In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord."

Also Isaiah 40:1:
"Comfort ye my people"
(please go comfort my people)

"Comfort ye, my people"
(cheer up! it might never happen!)

Grammar is insane! If people think that it doesn't matter, we're sorely mistaken. Please run out and buy or check out from your local library, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Even if you hate grammar like I do, this book offers funny examples and extremely visual rules of grammar (ever wonder why the apostrophe has so many jobs?) that you won't soon forget.

GET IT!