Scriptural Roles of Women: Genesis


My goal in this series is to analyze how complementarians and egalitarians come to their conclusions of women’s roles in their particular use of Christian Scripture, not to necessarily persuade anyone to a certain position.  I recognize the pros and cons, in biblical and experiential interpretation, of both sides.  I also understand that this is a very personal subject because this discussion, as a whole, directly addresses the past, present and future of women in ministry.  As with all theological studies, mere abstract language will not suffice; we are discussing God and our place in His world.

For this case study, I will be drawing from the Core Beliefs from The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and Christians for Biblical Equality’s (CBE) statement “Men, Women, and Biblical Equality”.  I will be looking at various parts of Genesis 1-3.

Read More

Becoming Part of The Story: Mark 16

I will be focusing on Mark 16:1-8.  The extended ending (verses 9-20) is not in our earliest manuscripts.[1]

The original ending of Mark ends quite abruptly.  The women have an encounter with an angel and are “trembling and bewildered” and “afraid”.  Understandably so, for anyone looking for a body and encounters an angelic being.  But reading this cliffhanger as part of the ancient church is both a literary and engagement device.

Read More

aabyegrace: I’ve joined a blog called The Ecumenicals. The stated purpose of the blog is to, “promot[e] understanding about Christian issues and theology through conversations between Christians and Skeptics.” Every week, the writers will address a particular theological question through the lens of their particular viewpoint. I’m excited. Our first post, which is on the interaction between science (particularly evolution) and theology. It will go up on Monday. For now, feel free to look around and check out the contributor bios. Have fun!
Pop-upView Separately

aabyegrace:

I’ve joined a blog called The Ecumenicals.

The stated purpose of the blog is to, “promot[e] understanding about Christian issues and theology through conversations between Christians and Skeptics.” Every week, the writers will address a particular theological question through the lens of their particular viewpoint.

I’m excited.

Our first post, which is on the interaction between science (particularly evolution) and theology. It will go up on Monday.

For now, feel free to look around and check out the contributor bios.

Have fun!

Book Review: Neighbors and Wise Men

Neighbors and Wise Men is a collection of scattered spiritual episodes from the life of the author, Tony Kriz.  Though the stories span from insights into Tony’s younger life growing up in the church to his present retrospection, the unifying theme is hearing God speak through unexpected people in not-so-normal situations.  These episodes take place in his missionary work in Albania, spiritual crisis in Hungary, seminary and pub days, a few years at Reed college and in more recent developments.

Each chapter varies in length, but each carries an insight that carries Kriz along his spiritual journey.  The writing sometimes read like parables, short but with a powerful point.  Sometimes it can be descriptive and introspective - a process of discussion and thought.  The writing doesn’t always expound on its points, which is disappointing because it brings up interesting remarks on the subject of divine communication.  Nevertheless, Kriz ties in the theme of “sacred encounters in unexpected places” as if God had stamped that motto on the author’s life.

This book will challenge Christians - no matter where they are in their faith - to rethink how God speaks to us today.  Coming from a more progressive point of view, even I found this book to be a breath of fresh air and convicting to how I go by the day-to-day, but it doesn’t come off as preachy.  Rather, Tony Kriz invites the reader into joyful and painful episodes of listening to neighbors and wise men.
3.5/5

Response to Christoforchuk: What is the Gospel?

Christoforchuk answered an anonymous question as to what the Gospel is.  His response:

Those four books you mentioned are considered the “Gospels”. They outline the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They are not however, the Gospel.

He then goes on to explain the biblical metanarrative of creation-fall-redemption-consummation (none of which I disagree with), but is still missing elements of the “biblical Gospel”.  So my rebuttal to Chuk, and for everyone else with this understanding of this “gospel”, is how does your understanding of the Gospel hold up to the Bible?  I’d like to make a few points:

Read More

JS Park: Why I'm No Longer Self-Identifying As A "Reformed Calvinist"

jspark3000:

“This is not a theology issue, but rather a love issue.  The ivory tower of Neo-Calvinism has reached so high, I’m not sure what the point is anymore.  Calvinist bloggers only stimulate other Calvinist bloggers.  Neo-Calvinism has become the ghetto of the ghetto of the Christian subculture. Somehow the sincere search for deeper doctrine has led to arrogance, inhouse fighting, a ridiculously isolated blogosphere, and 20 year olds condescending to everyone.  Doctrine-nerds are yelling “heresy” and “blasphemy” without a clue how serious those charges are, and also without a single gesture of brotherly love or empathy. Disagreements do not mean nuclear war.  How Jesus would grieve over these New Pharisees.”


I share these feelings JS Park has about the online community of Neo-Calvinism (though I’m sure Park and I probably differ on some theological issues).  Most “Neo-Calvinists” have rarely ever engaged or read other theologies on their own turf - most of what they know of Arminianism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox and varying other theologies are from, gasp, Reformed people.  Caricatures abound.  Just because someone you enjoy listening to says something is “biblical”, doesn’t mean it actually is.  I’ve encountered a decent amount of “be wary of this guy” about my blog because I don’t agree with the pillars of Calvinism.  Encountering these people reminds me of the Stoop Kid episode from Hey Arnold.  The Stoop Kid is afraid to leave his stoop, so he terrorizes anyone that comes near.  In actuality, their world is limited to this little place amongst the bigger neighborhood of theology.

That’s not to say all Calvinists are remotely like this.  One of my great friends is Calvinist, but she’s not a jerk (I think I’m more of a jerk to her sometimes…).  We constantly talk about theology and we acknowledge that we don’t agree.  But we both still love Jesus and want to see the Kingdom of God manifest on earth.  And that’s what ultimately counts.

“Biblical” Issues

The biggest differences between denominations and the East/West divide in the church is doctrine.  After the translation of the Bible into modern languages and the invention of the Gutenberg printing press, interpreting the Bible for oneself became available to those who could read throughout the modern world.  Also, this has also left us with many different interpretations of the Bible and many denominations with different doctrines.  The cliche advice of “just do/believe what the Bible says” has left us with many people doing/believing differently.

Yet most individuals/denominations endorse their beliefs with this powerful word:  “Biblical”.  Whenever someone/a community/church leaders/bishops/papacy promote or adopt a view, (hopefully) one of the reasons is because they believe it is “biblical”.  Eventually, the issue arises that one person’s Christian theology is the total opposite of another’s - yet both spout their beliefs as “Biblical”.  How does this work?  Can everyone have a valid interpretation (which sounds postmodern)?  Or is there absolutely one clear interpretation (and how do we decide)?

Read More