Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Women in the World of Jesus 1

posted by xscot mcknight

In this series of posts on Jesus and women, there will be a comprehensive survey of what we know about women at the time of Jesus. Our big question is this: What did Jesus and the early churches think of women and how were they incorporated into ministry? To answer this question we need to look at the evidence from the ancient world, which is the focus of this series.
This entire series is rooted in Tal Ilan’s important book, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Hendrickson, 1996). I have not yet read her second book, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (Hendrickson, 2001). There is no attempt to be complete here, and there is only a short bibliography at the end of this post. Alongside Ilan’s survey of the facts, comments will be occasionally made.

What I hope from this series is to provide each of us with a basic “state of the art” on what we know about women at the time of Jesus and the early churches, and at the same time, a counter to some of the stuff that is being said about women at that time. This series is based on a handout I sometimes give to my Jesus of Nazareth students.
In today’s post, I will look at two questions: how do we look at the evidence about women that has survived? And, what have the scholars been saying about Jewish women at the time of Jesus? Answers to both of these questions have a profound impact on what Christians say today about women and ministry.
How do we approach the evidence from the ancient world?
First, we need to respect the diversity of Judaism for it was a heterogeneous society and in each sector different understandings of women emerged. We cannot pretend that what one group thought or practiced another group also thought or practiced. Here are some variations to keep in mind: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, poor vs. aristocrats, Jesus movement, am ha-aretz (common people unobservant of Pharisaic laws). In addition, the Diaspora (those living outside the Land of Israel) evidence about women reveals another set of variations.
Second, we need to be aware of our sources: most of the evidence that survives about women derives from the upper class and frequently expresses upper class, Pharisaic ideals rather than common person realities. There are no videotapes of life for women, nor are there records that survive about common women’s perceptions of their treatment. What we have is stuff that comes to us from a variety of sources, much of it from upper class males.
Third, there are various kinds of evidence. Many of the statements about women are in halakhic statements (legal statements by rabbis but which, though stated has binding, are not necessarily a reflection of reality) and in haggadic accounts (stories illustrative of halakhic statements but which frequently form tension with other halakhic material). The haggadic material frequently divulges a more realistic portrait of women. What this means is this: if you find a legal ruling that assumes something about women (that men were not to talk with women in public), you cannot just assume that everyone observed that ruling. In fact, it is highly likely that this was not the case and that such rulings were often given to counter behavior that was not liked.
Fourth, we need to remind ourselves of this: all texts reflect their context and the ideas of the author; there is no necessary correspondence between the text and reality. This could be expanded in many ways, and I’m not suggesting a neo-Marxist distrust of all powerful statements, but I do want us to be aware that what we read is not necessarily what was going on.
Fifth, we have a special problem when it comes to rabbinic literature. Regardless of how much information can be found germane to this topic, rabbinic literature shaped by two orientations that distort the realities of first century Galilean Jewish life: (1) the evidence pertains to the upper class or at least the “rabbinic followers” and (2) the evidence that survives mostly does so because it was important to legal concerns of the rabbis. Hence, while incidental details emerge of value, the concerns are always legal. This legal emphasis must not be equated with the emphases of real social life.
What has been said about women at the time of Jesus?
First, some Jewish scholars have debated whether the Bible (Christian Old Testament) or the rabbinic sources (e.g., Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmuds, and midrashic writings) is more liberating.
Second, some Christian scholars have consistently exploited the Jewish sources as a foil to Jesus and the NT: the Jewish sources are oppressive but the Christian ones are (more) liberating. Much of the claims made here are tendentious and unhistorical. It is simply untrue that Jewish men were mean-spirited and that Jesus and the early Christians set women free.
Third, feminist scholars tend to read the ancient sources, both Jewish and Christian, with a hermeneutic of suspicion: the sources were written by men and support the power of men; the sources depict women as passive and receptive.
Christian feminists align themselves consistently with the second view but have had a different agenda. The most distinctive and radical Christian feminist voices are Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza (In Memory of Her) and Bernadette Brooten (Women Leaders in Ancient Synagogues).
Some Jewish feminists have argued that Christian feminists are anti-Semitic or anti-Judaism (see esp. Levine, “Lilies of the Field” [“The suggestion that Jesus was the only Jewish man to treat women with compassion is at best ahistorical-apologetic; the connection between ‘friend of women’ and ‘friend of sinners’ is at best overdrawn. The implication that the Jewish system tortured women is slanderous” (334). And: “There is no need to highlight a negative Judaism. Jesus can remain the liberationist Christian feminists want without being removed from his Jewish context” (351, italics added). See also Rosenblatt, 148-150.
Fourth, historical Jesus scholars, mostly Christian, have argued consistently that Jesus liberated the Jewish woman from oppressive Jewish laws. The most influential voice of the previous generation was Joachim Jeremias (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 232-250; Ilan’s book is an update of Jeremias’ famous chapter).
Bibliography and Abbreviations
All Jewish sources can be found in the library in English translation; for rabbinic sources, I recommend the translations of Jacob Neusner whenever available. The easiest source to use is the Babylonian Talmud.
m is for Mishnah, followed by the tractate.
t is for Tosefta, followed by tractate.
b is for Babylonian Talmud, followed by the tractate.
y is for Yerushalmi Talmud, followed by tractate.
Other sources include the rabbinic midrash, OT Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, Jewish historians (like Josephus), and the Dead Sea Scrolls; each be found in the library in translation.
Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law: The Essential Texts, Their History, & Their Relevance for Today (New York: Schocken, 1995).
S.J.D. Cohen, “Menstruants and the Sacred in Judaism and Christianity,” in Women’s History and Ancient History (ed. S.B. Pomeroy; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 271-299.
S. Freyne, “Jesus the Wine-drinker: A Friend of Women,” ,” in Kitzberger, Transformative Encounters, pp. 162-180.
T. Ilan, “The Attraction of Aristocratic Jewish Women to Pharisaism,” Harvard Theological Review 88 (1995) 1-33.
T. Ilan, “In the Footsteps of Jesus: Jewish Women in a Jewish Movement,” in Kitzberger, Transformative Encounters, pp. 115-136.
T. Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996 [=1995; based on a Ph.D. dissertation at Hebrew University in Jerusalem in the late 1980s]).
J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969).
Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger, editor, Transformative Encounters: Jesus and Women Re-Viewed (Biblical Interpretation Series 43; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000). [A collection of essays by women about Jesus and women; the book is divided into literary, historical, and actualization essays.]
Amy-Jill Levine, “Lilies of the Field and Wandering Jews: Biblical Scholarship, Women’s Roles, and Social Location,” ,” in Kitzberger, Transformative Encounters, pp. 329-352.
S. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).
S. McKnight, “A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity,” in B. Chilton, C.A. Evans, James the Just and Christian Origins (SupplNovTest XCVIII; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999) 83-129.
Gerbern S. Oegema, “Portrayals of Women in 1 and 2 Maccabees,” in I.R. Kitzberger, Transformative Enounters, 245-264.
Marie-Eloise Rosenblatt, “Gender, Ethnicity, and Legal Considerations in the Haemorrhaging Woman’s Story: Mark 5:25-34,” ,” in Kitzberger, Transformative Encounters, pp. 137-161.
Marianne Sawicki, “Magdalenes and Tiberiennes: City Women in the Entourage of Jesus,” ,” in Kitzberger, Transformative Encounters, pp. 181-202.
D.M. Scholer, “Women,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 880-887.
Carmen Bernabé Ubieta, “Mary Magdalene and the Seven Demons in Social-scientific Perspective,” ,” in Kitzberger, Transformative Encounters, pp. 203-223.
Elaine M. Wainright, “ ‘Your Faith Has Made You Well.’ Jesus, Women, and Healing in the Gospel of Matthew,” ,” in Kitzberger, Transformative Encounters, pp. 224-244.
B. Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).



Advertisement
Comments read comments(27)
post a comment
Greg McRitchie

posted December 19, 2005 at 12:07 pm


“all texts reflect their context and the ideas of the author; there is no necessary correspondence between the text and reality. This could be expanded in many ways, and I’m not suggesting a neo-Marxist distrust of all powerful statements, but I do want us to be aware that what we read is not necessarily what was going on.”
Good morning Scot.
I am wondering if you would include the Bible in the “all texts” of the above statement? Also; given your high view of Scripture, would you see a difference between the “text”, of what the Human authors of Scripture wrote, and the “reality” of God’s intentions? If not; then given the noted limitations of the extra-biblical material, should not the explicit statements of the Bible be the primary source of any doctrinal position regarding the role and function of Men and Women in the Church?



report abuse
 

Broken Messenger

posted December 19, 2005 at 12:48 pm


Scot,
You’ve drawn some interesting ground rules here and a good background to set the stage for this discussion. I look foward to see how this series will unfold.
Brad



report abuse
 

Bethie

posted December 19, 2005 at 3:59 pm


Will you also be looking at the “Gospel of Mary”?
I’ve been reading that recently and it is very
interesting! It is suppose to have been written sometime in the second century. I look forward to this series.
Blessings!



report abuse
 

Ted Gossard,

posted December 19, 2005 at 8:32 pm


I look forward to learning plenty, as usual from your posts, Scot. Thanks for sharing your teaching gift and learning with us.
I guess this is among those subjects I am especially interested in since it has become somewhat (at least) of a divisive issue among evangelicals (i.e., women’s role in ministry).



report abuse
 

J. B. Hood

posted December 20, 2005 at 6:07 pm


Scot and all,
An interesting chat on women in Judaism can be found at Suzanne McCarthy’s blog, Powerscourt. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2005/12/womans-siddur.html, and follow the link “God, I thank thee…” to the earlier post. Quite interesting flip on our normal thoughts on the matter.
J B Hood



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted December 20, 2005 at 7:06 pm


JB,
I just looked at her two posts — the author has a thing against being accurate.



report abuse
 

J. B. Hood

posted December 21, 2005 at 8:24 am


Thanks Scot.



report abuse
 

Greg McRitchie

posted December 21, 2005 at 3:59 pm


Was my question unworthy of a response Scot?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted December 21, 2005 at 4:19 pm


Greg,
Neither the question about the cultural embeddedness of every text nor the doctrine of Scripture are derived from what I had to say. I’m talking about the Jewish historical context of Jesus and the early churches with respect to women and ministry. The texts being discussed are those cited by Tal Ilan, and pertain to Second Temple Jewish texts and not the Scriptures, and neither does she have a take on the issue of the place of Scripture in a Christian perception of women and ministry.



report abuse
 

Greg McRitchie

posted December 21, 2005 at 6:16 pm


Thanks for your response Scot but it has left me somewhat puzzled. Your Post is filed under the category of “Women and Ministry” and included this in the preamble:
“Our big question is this: What did Jesus and the early churches think of women and how were they incorporated into ministry?”
That question is best answered by going directly to the explicit revelatory and infallible teachings of the NT Scripture. Cultural context from the times is interesting and informative but can never be used to trump the authoritative commands on the role and function of Men and Women in the Church.
“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:14-
You said:
“we need to remind ourselves of this: all texts reflect their context and the ideas of the author; there is no necessary correspondence between the text and reality. This could be expanded in many ways, and I’m not suggesting a neo-Marxist distrust of all powerful statements, but I do want us to be aware that what we read is not necessarily what was going on.
“all texts…..” is a universal statement and unless qualified, would include the Biblical texts. It is easily clarified. It is quite common for some to hold exactly that view of Scripture and then to treat the NT commands as culturally derived norms for that time that can/need to be adapted/conformed to the culture of our day. I don’t think it was out of line to seek clarification. I am not trying to trap you, just trying to get a fix on where you are heading with this line of inquiry.



report abuse
 

Derek Dodson

posted December 22, 2005 at 4:40 pm


Greg,
I’m interested in your comment that cultural studies “can never be used to trump the authoritative commands on the role and function of Men and Women in the Church.” On the one hand, I can appreciate your concern that cultural background studies may have the effect of “de-centering” the Scriptures as the primary focus of exegesis. (I remember evaulating a sermon series on the parables and came to the conclusion that I had actually preached background material rather than the parables themselves.)
But on the other hand, your comments can give the impression that cultural studies are at odds with the authority of Scripture. The goal of exegesis is to understand the bibical authors and their messages; knowledge of their cultural context is indispensable to the interpretative enterprise. My experience is that cultural studies do not trump the authoritative commands of Scripture but trump traditional interpretations of Scripture, and herein lies the “threat” of cultural studies. How many American churches require women to wear veils when they “pray and prophesy” in the church (1 Cor. 11)? How many sermons actually exhort women not to braid their hair, wear gold ornaments or fine clothing (1 Pet. 3)? We intuitively know that these Scriptural commands are culturally conditioned; their meaning (i.e., authority) for the church today requires a hermeneutical translation. But if cultural studies, along with literary and canonical studies, suggest that the household codes of Ephesians may actually subvert the heirarchal, power-defined relations of the Greco-Roman household, then we cry “foul!”; we believe that cultural studies are “trumping” the authority of Scripture. In fact, it may be that our traditional interpretation/application of the household codes are being “trumped.”
In the end, I believe that we ought to give full attention to the cultural context of the Scriptures. If we don’t, we actually may be mis-reading the truth/message the biblical writers intended.
Derek Dodson



report abuse
 

Greg McRitchie

posted December 22, 2005 at 6:25 pm


Very good comments Derek and ones that I generally agree with except that I would like to see what it is you mean by literary and canonical studies and how you would actually apply them.
You mentioned Ephesians and I think that is probably one of the major texts pertaining the current debate about male female roles. Have you read Lincoln’s Word commentary on Ephesians? It probably represents (in my thinking) all that is wrong with destructive biblical criticism. He first posits a non Pauline authorship based on flimsy circumstantial evidence and then makes all his applications based on that, including putting a positive spin on how since the pseudo Pauline author showed doctrinal adaptation and evolution in his/her false epistle, we can be comforted when we do the same.
I’m not saying Scot or you do that. Frankly I don’t know either way But it is a huge problem as far as I’m concerned



report abuse
 

Michael Kruse

posted December 23, 2005 at 10:26 am


“My experience is that cultural studies do not trump the authoritative commands of Scripture but trump traditional interpretations of Scripture, and herein lies the “threat” of cultural studies.”
That is a gem!



report abuse
 

Derek Dodson

posted December 23, 2005 at 2:48 pm


Greg, I guess it would be more precise to say literary and canonical context (instead of studies). In terms of the literary context of the Ephesian household codes, the leading instructions for wives and husbands are actually exhortations given earlier to the church as a whole. In 5:21, all Christians are exhorted to “be submissive to one another our of fear of Christ,” a command that is not gender specific. This general exhortation is then adopted for the specific instruction for wives (5:22). In 5:2, all Christians are exhorted to “live in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us,” a command that is not gender specific. This general exhortation is adopted for the specific instruction for husbands (5:25). It is interesting to note that I often ask my students and church members if wives should love their husbands as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. There is usually a resounding “yes.” And then I ask if husbands should submit themselves to their wives as to the Lord. There is usually an uncomfortable silence or sometimes an uncertain “no.” Why this “double standard”? I would suggest that the canonical context actually defines and characterizes Christ’s self-giving love in terms of humility and submissiveness (see esp. Phil. 2:6-8).
The canonical context is also the story of Scripture. God’s intention in creation is the partnership of man and woman, both of whom are created in the image of God. This partnership, however, is fractured because of Sin, and a heirarchy (man shall rule over the woman) is established as part of the punishment/curse. The heirarchy is a result of Sin, not God’s intention. Christ comes to redeem God’s creation, which has the effect of annulling the “curse” and restoring God’s intention in creation. The church is to live out this redemption, particularly in its relationships (e.g., Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-22). But the church lives “in between the times” (still awaiting the conclusion of the Story), and so the church has to live “in the world” but not “of the world.” The Ephesian household codes represent a grand illustration of this holy calling (Eph. 4:1-6). The (ancient) church still lives in a world where the Greco-Roman household is “the way things are”; it is the assummed cultural and social structure of the times. So, the early Christians live within this social structure, a structure that the Ephesian household codes assume. And yet, the church does not live according to the values of this social structure but the values of the Gospel, values that are articulated in the Ephesian household codes and–as I suggested in my earlier post–that actually end up subverting the very structure that it assumes (this subversion becomes most clear in light of cultural studies).
And yet, most preaching of the Ephesians household codes end appropriating the culturally assumed Greco-Roman household structure and not the radical Gospel/Kingdom values. I believe that Christians ought to treat the structure of the Greco-Roman household the same way as they have treated the issue of women veiling their heads: recognize its culturally conditioned character.
As to Lincoln’s commentary on Ephesians, whether he is right about (non)Pauline authorship will continue to be debated. But either way, we still have the text of Ephesians, and I believe his discussion of the Ephesians household code in comparison to other Greco-Roman household codes is very good.
Well, this post has gone on long enough. I hope it is constructive to our discussion.
derek



report abuse
 

Michael Kruse

posted December 23, 2005 at 3:11 pm


“The Ephesian household codes represent a grand illustration of this holy calling (Eph. 4:1-6). The (ancient) church still lives in a world where the Greco-Roman household is “the way things are”; it is the assummed cultural and social structure of the times. So, the early Christians live within this social structure, a structure that the Ephesian household codes assume. And yet, the church does not live according to the values of this social structure but the values of the Gospel, values that are articulated in the Ephesian household codes and–as I suggested in my earlier post–that actually end up subverting the very structure that it assumes (this subversion becomes most clear in light of cultural studies).”
I have been studying the household code for some time now and I am coming to the conclusion that the code is actually Paul’s primary strategy for transforming culture. He might have some different things to say today in our era of democracy where we can all have an impact on policy and governance but his strategy of mutual submission I suspect would still be the cornerstone.
What deeply troubles me is that this passage, which is such a remarkable statement of how to change the world, has in many circles become part of the bullwark for justifying hierarchical domination in the family; mostly from reading our contemporary metaphors for words like “head” back into the scriptures. This is why I appreciate this series by Scot, because without first understanding context we can’t help but read our cultural assumptions into the text.
Derek, I have read several books and articles on the household code and matters related to it. Are there two or three specific resources that you would consider essential reading for someone who wants to appreciate this passage? (Anyone elses ideas would be appreciated too.)



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted December 23, 2005 at 3:22 pm


I’ve thought for a long time that the entry in the New Int Dict of NT Theology, and the entry in the Anchor Bible Dict is about all one needs to get a fair and reasonable introduction to the topic. Then dive into the more recent commentaries — like Dunn on Colossians or Lincoln on Ephesians or Elliott on 1 Peter. My lecture on the topic is about 15 years old — I used it at TEDS in 1 Peter.



report abuse
 

Michael Kruse

posted December 23, 2005 at 4:13 pm


Thanks Scot. I will look into these. I have seen the entry in Anchor but I don’t think I have checked out the New Int Dic entry.
Gordon Fee wrote and article in 2002 “The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5:18-6:9″ which I thought was excellent. The article is in PDF. If you go to the link below you can click on the link for the PDF of his article.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/ephesians5.shtml



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted February 5, 2006 at 3:28 am


Intolerable ….:::: » Women in the World of Jesus

[…] The Jesus Creed blog has had a series of excellent and informative entries concerning ‘Women in the World of Jesus”, the five parts posted so far found here, here, here, here and here […]



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 19, 2006 at 4:43 pm


payday loan

payday loan
payday loan
Q: What’s a light-year?
A: One-third less calories than a regular year.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 23, 2006 at 5:08 pm


buy buspirone

educational toys
educational toys
educational toys – educational toys
A light wife doth make a heavy husband.
— Wm. Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice”
For there are moments when one can neither think nor feel. And if one can
neither think nor feel, she thought…—–
buy buspirone
buy buspirone
buy buspirone – buy buspirone
Q: What is orange and goes “click, click?”
A: A ball point carrot.
This is the first age that’s paid much attention to the future, which is a
little ironic since we may not have one.
— Arthur Clarke



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 28, 2006 at 7:06 pm


buy famvir

buy famvir
buy famvir
buy famvir – buy famvir
“You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive.”
— Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “A Study in Scarlet”
Troubled day for virgins over 16 who are beautiful and wealthy and live
in eucalyptus trees.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 29, 2006 at 4:22 pm


forex investments

forex investments
forex investments
forex investments – forex investments
Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.
Q: What’s buried in Grant’s tomb?
A: A corpse.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 30, 2006 at 9:08 pm


cheap ultracet

buy ambien online
buy ambien online
buy ambien online – buy ambien online
“You have heard me speak of Professor Moriarty?”
“The famous scientific criminal, as famous among crooks as –”
“My blushes, Watson,” Holmes murmured, in a deprecating voice.
“I was abo…—–
cheap ultracet
cheap ultracet
cheap ultracet – cheap ultracet
You’re not my type. For that matter, you’re not even my species!!!
That secret you’ve been guarding, isn’t.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 10, 2006 at 6:55 am


best day trader

best day trader
best day trader
best day trader – best day trader
The better part of valor is discretion.
— William Shakespeare, “Henry IV”
You get along very well with everyone except animals and people.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 16, 2006 at 7:51 am


download bhangra

day trader
day trader
day trader – day trader
Things past redress and now with me past care.
— William Shakespeare, “Richard II”
Q: How many Bell Labs Vice Presidents does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That’s proprietary information. Answer available …—–
blue dragon shoes
blue dragon shoes
blue dragon shoes – blue dragon shoes
He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his
argument.
— William Shakespeare, “Love’s Labour’s Lost”
You’re definitely on their list. The question to ask next i…—–
download bhangra
download bhangra
download bhangra – download bhangra
Beware the one behind you.
You will visit the Dung Pits of Glive soon.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 25, 2006 at 9:57 am


as seen on tv dog ramp

antidepressant
antidepressant
antidepressant – antidepressant
At once it struck me what quality went to form a man of achievement,
especially in literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously
— I mean negative capability, that is, when a man is capable of…—–
as seen on tv dog ramp
as seen on tv dog ramp
as seen on tv dog ramp – as seen on tv dog ramp
You will visit the Dung Pits of Glive soon.
There is a 20% chance of tomorrow.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 26, 2006 at 1:49 am


playstation

playstation
playstation
playstation – playstation
Q: Why was Stonehenge abandoned?
A: It wasn’t IBM compatible.
Advancement in position.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.