J

TL:DR – Hey, Philip Jenkins, your conservative bias is showing.

I had to read this for a seminary course and interact briefly with each chapter. So here is what I wrote:

Chapter 1: What stood out to me in this chapter was that Jenkins' seemed to be praising the “conservative themes” running through African and Asian Christianity: “These include a much greater respect for the authority of scripture, especially in matters of morality; a willingness to accept the Bible as an inspired text and a tendency to literalism; a special interest in supernatural elements of scripture, such as miracles, visions, and healings; a belief in the continuing power of prophecy; and a veneration for the Old Testament, which is considered as authoritative as the New” (4). And Jenkins seems to be dismissive of “liberals” who would take issue with that kind of literalism when he writes, “Liberals might indeed discern all the elements of that unholy trinity identified by Peter Gomes—bibliolatry, culturism, and literalism—a religion of the letter rather than the Spirit, one that worships the text rather than God” (10). But I think I would fall into the so-called “liberal” camp here because I am extremely wary of bibliolatry and literalism at this point.

Chapter 2: I do like the emphasis on hearing scripture read aloud in a communal setting and not being relegated to a private, individual task all of the time. (page 25)

Chapter 3: There was an interesting example about people in Uganda who loved the story of Solomon and all of his wives pushing back on what the missionaries were telling them about polygamy being wrong. The people said “didn't you tell me everything in the Bible was true?” and then the missionary had to explain “that words in the Bible, while all true and divinely inspired, are true to varying degrees” (Jenkins, 42). But I agree that we have to understand that “true” doesn't always mean “fact”. So we have to dig deep into what do we mean by “Is the Bible true?” We cannot and should not put the Old Testament on the same level as the New Testament. Doing so contributes to a flat reading of the text that is not helpful, at best, and leads to really bad theology, at worst.

Chapter 4: I think this is an important takeaway from this chapter: “What the North reads in moral or individualistic terms remains for the South social and communal. (79). I think those of us in North America could learn a great deal and be impacted a great deal from learning how to think and read the Bible in less individualistic ways and move towards more communal ways of living and understanding the Bible.

Chapter 5: I think there can be a tendency for some people to see the work of Satan where it's just sinful people or it's just a natural disaster that may or may not be the result of the way we humans have treated our planet. An example is given about the tsunami in 2004. The leader of one Nigerian independent church said: “the Holy Bible shows that Satan is responsible for the troubles that afflict the world” (99). But I just don't think I buy that explanation.

Chapter 6: I liked the commentary on applying Psalm 23 – “Global South Christians use Psalm 23 in familiar devotional ways, but they also understand it as a stark rejection of unjust secular authority” (127).

Chapter 7: I feel very strongly about women's rights and women's equality. I was raised in the conservative Christian Church (Restoration Movement) where women were not allowed to preach/teach/lead men. I wrestled with that teaching and pushed back against it until I finally came to understand that it was NOT, in fact, the only way to interpret those key passages in the New Testament. So when I read about how in the global South, women are still viewed as objects or possessions with no rights, it infuriates me. And I am glad that Christianity is actually opening the door to giving them freedom and power to speak up: “It is especially from the texts dealing with women that readers discover the full radicalism of the Christian message” (177).

Chapter 8: I'm really tired of seeing/hearing people, including Jenkins, use “liberal” and “liberalism” as a negative descriptor: “The contrast seems worrying: new orthodox churches hew to authentic scripture; old churches fall prey to liberalism and succumb to fiction and speculation” (186). Part of the problem with tossing around the word “liberal” and “liberalism” comes down to defining our terms. Is someone a liberal Christian if they don't believe the worldwide flood actually happened? What if they don't believe God really told the Israelites to commit genocide, or that the battle of Jericho might not have actually happened the way it is recorded in the Old Testament? These things come down to different interpretations of scripture and I would argue that this does not equate someone not being faithful to God's word.

I disagree with so much of Vanhoozer and Strachan's theology and interpretations on things.

First example:
I realize this was kind of a side point, but at the beginning of chapter 3, Vanhoozer is talking about Heidegger's thoughts on anxiety, which included a belief that all humans deal with anxiety because of our fear of death which we know is inevitable.

But I take issue strongly with the following:

“We are all suffering from a bad case of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Anxiety medications abound, as do types of anxiety: social anxiety, posttraumatic stress, phobias, depression, and panic attacks. An estimated 40 percent of Americans suffer from some kind of anxiety disorder, and antidepressant or antianxiety medications (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft) are frequently prescribed.[5] Yet one wonders whether certain drug-induced tranquility might not count as “saying ‘Peace' when there is no peace” (Ezek. 13:10 altered). The closest medical equivalent to what Heidegger meant by anxiety is probably “generalized anxiety disorder.”“According to Heidegger, there is no particular trigger to anxiety (in contrast to phobias, which have specific objects, like spiders or public speaking): it is rather a spiritual condition on the borderlands of despair, less a specific feeling than a mood.”

I will not tolerate this kind of over-spiritualizing of mental health issues.

I have zero patience with someone, especially someone in a leadership position, who tries to downplay or dismiss the medical side of mental health issues like anxiety and depression. Vanhoozer is describing Heidegger's views here, I think, but he doesn't contradict him either. He goes so far as to say that general anxiety disorder “is rather a spiritual condition on the borderlands of despair”. I just wrote a 16-page paper for my practical theology class last semester arguing against that kind of harmful theology and praxis! It is irresponsible and dangerous to over-spiritualize mental health struggles.

Another thing that irritated me throughout the book was the ongoing negativity towards those who want to teach theology, especially since both of these dudes teach theology!!!!

In chapter 3 Vanhoozer wrote: “I've labored in the field of theology for years, but my uncle still wants to know when I'm going to get a real job. So does the handyman I sometimes hire. I get it. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. No doubt many Christians would be happy to add: and those who really can't, teach theology.”

Please, for the love of everything good in this world, STOP! STOP DISRESPECTING THE VOCATION OF TEACHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the preface to the book they wrote, “It takes wisdom and joyful enthusiasm to be a pastor. To get a doctorate, you only need to have a modicum of intelligence and the ability to grind it out. I'm afraid that you may only be qualified to be an academic, not a pastor. Ministry is a lot harder than scholarship.”

Really? Only a modicum of intelligence? Come on! I was annoyed by Vanhoozer and Strachan's apparent disdain for theologians in the academy who want to be in the academy teaching as opposed to being a pastor of a church. This makes no sense when they themselves are professor theologians, which they admit, so I'm still rather confused by this. They also wrote, “The underlying conviction is that theological minds need to return to where they belong: in the body of Christ.” Again, this seems to imply that there is no need for any of us in the academy. But surely this is not what they mean. Because they went on to say, “We don't wish to exaggerate: there is a place for academic theology, but it is second place. First place—pride of theological place—belongs to the pastor-theologian.” Well I disagree. Why do we have to say one is in the first place or second place. Why can't we just say that both things are needed?

I will say that I agree that pastors need to be theologians also. It is important for pastors to always be reading, studying, and learning throughout their ministry so they can use that in their ministry. It seems like that should be a given, and I guess this book exists because that is not always the case.

Erika Morrison's BANDERSNATCH is organized around four ideas viewed through Jesus' life: Avant-Garde, Alchemy, Anthropology, and Art. These four themes reveal a different aspect of God's “unorthodox creativity.”

I love the way Morrison is encouraging us to find liberation from rigid religion that would attempt to put God in a box and keep us in a cage.

Favorite quotes:

“Glory is already down everywhere, waiting to be invited into our nothing. We cannot escape the encompassing presence of God because it fills the final bit of everything right down to the last atom in a shaft of sunlight receding below the edge of the globe.”

“Here's how you tell the difference: If a religious system dominates or powers over you and tries to manage your behaviors or beliefs, it's a human-made system. If a system is designed to come under you and support the growth of your love with Christ and your rare, creative, contributing self—if it seeks to support the health of your heart first, not manage your behaviors or beliefs—then it's manifested from the Spirit.”

I am a deeply empathetic person by nature, but not everyone is.
Bauman says one of the key elements our culture is lacking today is empathy. Too often we assume we know exactly how other people are thinking and feeling and we don't listen to what they actually are saying.

Bauman writes, “We are subtly—and sometimes not so subtly—ignoring each other's perspectives, circumstances, and needs. Instead of seeking to understand, we quietly pronounce judgment, stoking a simmering anger. Or we smile civilly, nodding our head, feeding the isolation among us. What are we missing? Maybe we're missing each other. The world has settled for competition instead of compassion, civility instead of love, transaction instead of community.”

I wish all those folks at TGC would read her book, but I doubt they would be open to what she is saying here. (They keep putting out bad theology about empathy being a sin, which it most certainly is not.)

I really love this book.

Here are some of my favorite quotes:

“Ask anyone what she means when she says ‘God' and chances are that you will learn a lot more about that person than you will learn about God.”

“Love God in the person standing right in front of you, the Jesus of my understanding says, or forget the whole thing, because if you cannot do that, then you are just going to keep making shit up.”

“Religions are treasure chests of stories, songs, rituals, and ways of life that have been handed down for millennia - not covered in dust but evolving all the way- so that each new generation has something to choose from when it is time to ask the big questions in life. Where did we come from? Why do bad things happen to good people? Who is my neighbor? Where do we go from here? No one should have to start from scratch with questions like these. Overhearing the answers of the world's great religions can help anyone improve his or her own answers. Without a religion, these questions often do not get asked.”

“Existential dizziness is one of the side effects of higher education, and it affects teachers too.”

“The only clear line I draw these days is this: when my religion tries to come between me and my neighbor, I will choose my neighbor. That self-canceling feature of my religion is one of the things I like best about it. Jesus never commanded me to love my religion.”

“I asked God for religious certainty, and God gave me relationships instead. I asked for solid ground, and God gave me human beings instead—strange, funny, compelling, complicated human beings—who keep puncturing my stereotypes, challenging my ideas, and upsetting my ideas about God, so that they are always under construction.”

“The problem with every sacred text is that it has human readers. Consciously or unconsciously, we interpret it to meet our own needs. There is nothing wrong with this unless we deny that we are doing it, as when someone tells me that he is not ‘interpreting' anything but simply reporting what is right there on the page. This is worrisome, not only because he is reading a translation from the original Hebrew or Greek that has already involved a great deal of interpretation, but also because it is such a short distance between believing you possess an error-free message from God and believing that you are an error-free messenger of God. The literalists I like least are the ones who do not own a Bible. The literalists I like most are the ones who admit that they do not understand every word God has revealed in the Bible, though they still believe God has revealed it. I can respect that.

I can respect almost anyone who admits to being human while reading a divine text. After that, we can talk - about we highlight some teachings and ignore others, about how we decide which ones are historically conditioned and which ones are universally true, about who has influenced our reading of scripture and how our social location affects what we hear. The minute I believe I know the mind of God is the minute someone needs to tell me to sit down and tell me to breathe into a paper bag.”

I mostly agree with Thomas Jay Oord. And I pretty much knew that going into this book, so I was predisposed to like it. I don't believe that God is “up there” orchestrating every detail of our lives, causing or even “allowing” the pain and suffering and evil and death that we experience in our lives. I don't believe it works that way. And Oord does a good job of explaining why that is a really good conclusion to come to based upon Scripture as well as everything we experience in life and know to be true.

Oord pushes back on the common answers and cliches people use about how “everything happens for a reason” and “it's all part of God's plan”, and “his ways are higher than our ways” so, mystery.

Key quotes that set up the book:

“The big ideas in this book share two assumptions, and I want to mention them before going further. The first is that God loves us all, all the time. God loves everyone and everything, all creatures great and small. God never stops loving, even for one moment, because God's nature is love. God listens, feels, and responds by acting for good. God wills our well-being, not our woe being.”“It doesn't help to say God loves us if we have no idea what love is!”“By contrast, I believe what God thinks is loving matches what we think is loving. Our intuitions of love fit God's view of love. We best define this shared meaning when love is understood as acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. In short, love aims to do good. That view of love applies to Creator and creatures. God always loves, and God's love is always good. Every idea I advocate in this book assumes God is loving.”

His five chapters that make up his argument/solution to the problem of evil are the following:

1. God Can't Prevent Evil
2. God Feels Our Pain
3. God Works to Heal
4. God Squeezes Good from Bad
5. God Needs Our Cooperation

He says that together, these five ideas give us an actual solution to the problem of evil, but they aren't satisfying on their own. All five are essential to see the big picture.

I really love this part towards the end of the book:

“I no longer fear God. It took a while to arrive where I am today. I had to overcome fear-based theologies. I realized the Old Testament statement, “fear God,” is better phrased, “respect God.” I came to believe biblical stories portraying God as vengeful were inaccurate. I had to ignore voices in culture, the church, and history that preach this fear. The key to overcoming my fear was realizing God always loves me. God's perfect love cast out my fear of God!”

We read some large sections of Calvin's Institutes in my Theodicy class and I still don't care for much of Calvin.

Read my full review at JenniferNeyhart.com

Abby Norman is a pastor and a gifted writer and it shows. The first thing that jumped off the page as I started reading this book was Abby's pastoral tone. She is not preaching at you about lament. She is coming alongside you to encourage you as she talks about how lament can draw us in closer to God.

Abby tweeted in December of 2020 that she didn't mean to write an increasingly relevant book, but she did! The past year and a half of dealing with the pandemic and the chaotic political nonsense, along with the ongoing violence against Black people by police officers, mass shootings... there is no shortage of things to lament.

Abby is a great writer and I am sure she is a great pastor. Abby and I have been internet friends for longer than I can remember now, and I even got to meet her in person at Evolving Faith in 2018. She has been such an encouragement to me in ways big and small over the years. And I am so thankful she wrote this book! I think it could encourage a lot of people. I know it encouraged me. I ended up reading it in one sitting but I definitely want to go back through it and take my time with it.

One particularly moving part was when Abby talked about how we can hold hope for each other, and sometimes we need that because hope is too heavy for us sometimes.

My favorite part (if I have to choose just one thing) is the prayers Abby prays for her readers at the end of each chapter and at the end of the book. These prayers wash over me like the ones Sarah Bessey often prays for her readers and listeners.

What are you waiting for? Go get her book and read it! :-)

This was a fun book to listen to just for the Star Wars soundtrack and lightsaber sounds. It was more like listening to a radio drama than a book. The story was just okay, but not a bad listen.

I still absolutely love all of Matthew Paul Turner's children's books, and this new one is no exception! Matthew is so good at conveying profound, beautiful, encouraging truths that we all need to hear. And as usual, this book also contains absolutely gorgeous illustrations.

Someone I used to work with published a children's book! That's cool!

I LOVED reading Jennifer Knapp's story. I was obsessed with her music when I was in high school and college. I find myself revisiting it for the first time in years and I still love her voice and many of her songs. And now I want to listen to all of her newer stuff too! I wish I could talk to her to tell her how much her music and her book now have meant to me.

I see some of my own story in Matt's. It's not the same exact story, obviously. I am a gay woman, for starters. But there were some things that resonated deeply. Like this quote: “hiding from yourself makes things all the more difficult to find. Nearly impossible. [...] Looking back, it's easy to see the truth. But when you are in an all-out war to be straight, you'll forage for any clue that points in that direction. [...] I spent years complicating what would've been easy to know. But I didn't have the tools to be honest with myself or others.”

And this:

“My walk out of evangelicalism happened over a very long decade. At first, it was like coming out of a coma. Then once I was awake, there was sifting to do—fear to let go of, educating myself, new friends to find, and ultimately, the breaking away. When your entire life is defined by something this powerful, it becomes an amputation with ghost pains that can last a lifetime. Standing at the precipice, something was calling me forward. But leaving the place where I had lived for so long—that I was entirely familiar with—was a terrifying leap. Because there are some leavings we cannot get back to. While walking out on them, we are also abandoning a part of ourselves. And there is something sad about that. Because nothing in our lives is exclusively one thing or the other. In each segment, there is good and bad. Love and loss. And inhabiting the new places we've never been demands that we find out who we are there, what we will become, and how we will live.”

I was drawn to this book because of the title which I recognized as part of a famous quote by Julian of Norwich, which I love: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.” This short children's picture book also includes the quote, “We live and we last because God loves us.” Such beautiful and true theology! If you are here, then God loves you!

This book also helps children (and adults!) know it's okay to feel their emotions, and how it helps to name them. (Sometimes sad feels like mad, for example.) It also shows Julian processing her grief of her Mima dying: “Why didn't you make Mima well?” she asked God. Like Job, she does not get a direct answer to her question, but she is reminded that God loves her and God loved Mima and “All will be well, all will be well, everything will be well.” These are big themes, big questions, and big feelings we all still struggle with as adults, packaged in an age-appropriate, wise and loving way for children. I think the best children's books are ones might be the ones like this one that resonate with us as adults as well.

2022: from my notes from my seminary class:

Revelation is a debated book. John Calvin didn't want it in the Bible. Its value theologically is debated. So one reading strategy is to just not read it. (not the most helpful approach!)

Reading it through a dispensational lens is a popular approach to understanding it as future predictions, literal events that will take place “soon” - (premillennial, “Left Behind” series nonsense.) This approach seems to think the book was written for the contemporary world instead of a historical audience. This interpretation also borrows images from other NT texts: for example, there is no antichrist in Revelation. That's mentioned in 1 and 2 John. The same is true of the rapture. It's not in Revelation, it's in Thessalonians and read into Revelation. This premillennial interpretation is also a passive reading that says we just sit back and wait for God to do God's things and humans don't have to do anything because God is in control.

Weaknesses of this approach:
-it assumes the writer didn't know what they were doing or writing and that is not a very convincing argument.
-There is no account of the circumstances for how the text arose or the community it was created in or for.
-Prophecy in the biblical sense is NOT future telling. So this dispensational interpretation completely misunderstands the nature of prophecy. Prophecy is Forth-telling not Foretelling - it's about the present and what needs to change. Prophecy denounces oppression and injustice in the contemporary world of the writer in an effort to present God's just purposes, God's kin-dom.
-Doesn't take into account the genre of a letter and a Revelation
-It confuses symbolic images with literal images
-Because it is a passive approach it makes readers indifferent to pain and injustice (like climate change and everything else) - creates/allows apathy towards the brokenness of the world and feel nor bear responsibility to fix it or call out their responsibility for contributing to it

Better reading strategy pays attention to the circumstances -
A Different Reading Strategy
- noting that it's an ancient text written to ancient communities.
-It was written around 70-100 CE because it was written after the destruction of the temple - maybe closer to 70 because the images seem pretty fresh. The pain feels fresh.
-The writer addresses small communities of Christians in 7 cities in modern-day Turkey which was the Roman province of Asia
-One way people have interpreted what was happening historically was to say the Christians were being heavily persecuted but there's no evidence of that until 251. During this time we don't see architectural or extra-Biblical evidence to support this at this time. There were local conflicts that early Christian communities could have had with their neighbors. Most of these early Christians lived peaceably (not comfortably) in their little towns. They weren't elite. They were mostly poor, struggling to find jobs and food. They didn't live that long. Infant mortality was high. Lots of social stressors and anxieties. So when we hear references to hardships in these letters, those are the images we should see instead of Christians being persecuted by Rome.

So if persecution isn't the reason, then what is the reason? John is addressing a particular situation - a division among them - they can't agree on how to conduct themselves with the Roman Empire. Is the Roman Empire positive or negative?

Revelation is/contains 3 genres:
1) a Revelation (Apokolips: unveil, reveal, disclosing God's will and purposes, a revealing, disclosure about the world and God's desires for the world) lots of symbolic language engages the reader's imagination
-Emerged out of perceived crisis from the author's standpoint - the author is trying to convince the audience that it is a crisis.
-Expect it to describe visions or journeys, dualistic: black and white, good and evil
-Expect it to disclose evil of the present marked by specific economic structures...
-Expect it to reveal God's purpose for the world and that God will prevail over evil no matter how wicked or evil the rulers were
-Expected to reveal punishment of the wicked and reward for the good
-Expected to describe the world set right again; recreated in right relationship with God - justice
Strange creatures, vivid imagery, colors, numbers, all kinds of symbols, heavenly scenes, conflict
Often concerned with sovereignty: who or what rules the world? Does evil have the final word? Is there justice for the powerless?

2) Prophecy - addressing a particular situation; (again, Prophecy in the biblical sense is NOT future telling. So this dispensational interpretation completely misunderstands the nature of prophecy. Prophecy is Forth-telling not Foretelling - it's about the present and what needs to change. Prophecy denounces oppression and injustice in the contemporary world of the writer in an effort to present God's just purposes, God's kin-dom.)

3) a Letter - addressing specific communities and situations.
Understands that this book requires action from the readers, from the Christians - active faithfulness, not passive

Revelation Outline
What does Revelation Reveal?
-Reveals that it is God's word to God's world (Rev 1)
-Reveals that cultural accommodation is dangerous (Rev 2-3)
(stop participating in Empire!) Stop participating in Empire's economy? (But John doesn't give them solutions for how to survive if they do that...)
-Reveals true worship (Rev 4-5)
-Reveals that judgment is taking place now (Rev 6:1-8:5)
-Reveals that the world has a chance to repent (Rev 8-11)
-Reveals the evil powers behind the scenes (Rev 12-14)
-Reveals that time is up for the eternal empire (Rev 15-18)
-Reveals the coming triumph of God (Rev 19-22)

Outline from: Warren Carter, What Does Revelation Reveal? Unlocking the Mystery (Nashville: 3011)

The 7 churches
Read through these 7 letters to see what is John telling them to do. What is he saying is the problem? Who is he writing about? What other voices can we find in the community?
1. Ephesus (2:1-7)
2. Smyrna (2:8-11)
3. Pergamum (2:12-17)
4. Thyatira (2:18-29)
5. Sardis (3:1-6)
6. Philadelphia (3:7-13)
7. Laodicea (3:14-22)

2022: From my notes from my seminary class:

Ephesians was probably written between 70-100 AD

Ephesus was a major port city (exports and imports), the center of commerce and trade
Trade was often done in family systems

Historical look at the Household Codes:
What are the Greco-Roman Household Codes? They read like a literary formula regarding common philosophy in the Greco-Roman world containing instructions for what a household should look like. To talk about this common theme scholars decided to call “Household Codes.” The household was a kind of microcosm for the whole society.

What do we do with these difficult texts?
How do we handle/deal with oppressive texts that hold up systems of oppression?

This chapter in Ephesians begins with a call to mutual submission.
Ephesians includes it (Colossians doesn't) but it also increases the authority the husbands have over what Colossians has: Col 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Eph. 5:22-24: Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 for the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

How do we negotiate with these texts?
We can engage a range of approaches:
-Historical shows us where it's coming from
-Ideological reading - where we read with a critique of systems of domination and oppression
-Rhetorical / Literary skills show us what else is in the letter and hold this in tension with other parts of the letter. (In Ephesians, this problematic part conflicts with Eph ch 2 talking about the new life we have in Christ.)
-Canonical Criticism - read with the perspective of the larger Canon of NT or NT and OT and set this in conversation with that larger picture.

As interpreters, we get to decide (and we do decide) what is emphasized and what is not.
We decide what is the Gospel and what is not.

What from this text is an expression of God's good news, God's inbreaking kingdom, and what is being coopted from the ancient context?

The fact that the household codes are being stated here, stating the obvious, means there were people in the community who weren't doing that. It's an argument from silence.

How do we hold these multiple voices in tension with each other?

This is another one of those books I wish I had been able to read several years ago when I was really anxious about how deep the rabbit hole would go for me... I love this quote from the book:

“I hadn't yet summoned the courage to face the most terrifying questions Christians can ever ask themselves: “if this small part of my faith that I always believed to be true no longer is, what else might not be true?” and “If the Bible doesn't say what I'd grown up believing it says in these handful of verses, where else have I gotten it wrong?” It begins to feel as though those questions themselves will destroy your faith for good, when in reality they should be welcome intrusions. Doubt isn't the sign of a dead faith, not necessarily even of a sickly one. It's often the sign of a faith that is allowing itself to be tested, one that is brave enough to see if it can hold up under stress. The worst thing you can do in those seasons of uncertainty is to pile upon your already burdened shoulders guilt for the mere fact that the wavering exists. God is more than big enough to withstand the weight of your vacillating belief, your part-time skepticism, and even your full-blown faith crises. We've been taught that such things are the antithesis of belief, usually by those who are afraid to be transparent about their own instability. God can handle your wavering, friend, even if those around you can't.” (John Pavlovitz, 44)

I love the message of the book, but there's not enough meat to it or content to warrant a repeat reading.

Here are some other quotes I liked:

“The heart of the bigger table is the realization that we don't have to share someone's experience to respect their road. As we move beyond the lazy theology and easy caricatures that seek to remove any gray from people's lives, we can meet them in that grayness, right where they are, without demanding they become something else in order to earn proximity to us or to a God who loves them dearly. Just as was true in the life and ministry of Jesus. Real love is not contingent upon alteration; it simply is. There is no earning of fellowship or deserving of closeness; there is only the invitation itself and the joy that comes when you are fully seen and heard.” (18-19)


“The truth is real spirituality is usually costly. Many followers of Jesus end up learning this not from the world outside the Church but from our faith tradition itself. We end up choosing Jesus and losing our religion; finding proximity to him creates distance from others. If you seek to expand the table you're going to find yourself in a tough spot. The truth may not get you fired. (Although it might).” (52).


“This is what it means to be the people of the bigger table: to look for the threads that might tie us together and to believe that these are more powerful than we imagine. This is the only future the Church really has. Disparate people will not be brought together through a denomination or a pastor or by anything the institutional church can offer. We know that now. These were useful for a time, but they are an exercise in diminishing returns. The Church will thrive only to the degree it is willing to be out making space for a greater swath of humanity and by recognizing the redemptive power of relationships. (62-63)


This sounds all too familiar:

“Frame the spiritual journey as a stark good-vs.-evil battle of warring sides long enough and you'll eventually see the Church and those around you in the same way too. You'll begin to filter the world through the lens of conflict. Everything becomes a threat to the family; everyone becomes a potential enemy. Fear becomes the engine that drives the whole thing. When this happens, your default response to people who are different or who challenge you can turn from compassion to contempt. You become less like God and more like the Godfather. In those times, instead of being a tool to fit your heart for invitation, faith can become a weapon to defend yourself against the encroaching sinners threatening God's people—whom we conveniently always consider ourselves among. Religion becomes a cold, cruel distance maker, pushing from the table people who aren't part of the brotherhood and don't march in lockstep with the others.” (28)

“I knew without blinking that I didn't have to choose between loving God and loving my brother - and he didn't have to choose between being gay and being adored by God.” (17)

2022: From my notes from my seminary class:

This text has a vast array of interpretive history and has been used in lots of different ways, including condoning slavery and speaking against it. So what do we do with it?

It only has 25 verses making it the shortest book in the NT. And because it is so short there is a lot that we don't know. How did Onesimus find himself with Paul? Did he run away? If so, why? What good deed/duty is Paul expecting Philemon to perform on Onesimus' return? All unanswered questions.

There are four main interpretations of Philemon:
1) Paul is returning a newly converted but runaway slave to Philemon and Paul will make restitution for damage Onesimus has caused.
2) Paul is encouraging Philemon in light of the gospel to free the newly converted Onesimus and treat him as a brother rather than a slave.
3) Paul wants Onesimus to be his own slave, and he exhorts Philemon to transfer his ownership to Paul.
4) Onesimus is not a slave but is Philemon's biological brother who was estranged. Paul has converted him and seeks to heal the fractured family relationship between Philemon and Onesimus.


In the whole 25 verses, only one time Onesimus is referred to with slave language, “as a slave.” This could be a comparison rather than a description. Philemon is the older, more powerful brother, and so Onesimus is like a slave, lower than his brother.

The letter to Philemon does not offer a carefully thought-out argument for slavery–it's not even a topic of the letter. Instead, slavery is a comparison made one time in the letter. Paul is not setting a theological agenda or universal standard.

2022: from my notes from my seminary class:

- letter to the church founded by Paul in Corinth in the early 50s
- This letter was probably written in the mid-50s
- We know he's already written at least one letter prior to 1 Corinthians because it is referenced in 1 Cor.
- 1 Cor is a highly rhetorical letter. Paul is arguing A LOT in this letter. It is the most rhetorical of all the letters
- The book of Acts is historically unreliable when it comes to Paul so we don't want to read Paul through Acts. Acts has a different agenda. It is telling the story through a very specific theologically oriented goal.
- 1 Cor. is most famous for its disputes. It was a church in crisis, in conflict.
- Most arguments for a long time depicted the Corinthians as heathens but recent scholarship has shifted to seeing Corinthians who were Jesus followers who disagreed with Paul about how to be the church/how to live in community with each other and navigate the Empire they were living in/under.
- Much of the letter is in response to a previous letter and you can see this because Paul keeps saying “now concerning” — responding to something specific they had written in their letter

Two important questions to keep in mind:
1) When is Paul referencing the Corinthians' own words about themselves and when are his own interests, language, and agenda coming through?
2) Where do we see the Corinthians' questions and where do we see Paul emphasizing something that is his own concern?

2022: from my notes from my seminary class:

Most scholars do not think Peter wrote 1 & 2 “Peter”
By the early 3rd or 4th century Christians were doubting Peter wrote these.
There is a reference in the letter to “Babylon” likely in reference to Rome because the first temple was destroyed by Babylonians and Rome destroyed the 2nd temple in 70 CE. That is why scholars don't think it was Peter.

Why “Peter” as the name? Because it comes with authority
Written to whom? Pontus, Lapadocia, by thinia, Galicia, Asia provinces
Pontus and Galatia were taken by Rome by force. The others through diplomacy but must multiply
Written to Christian Gentiles who now worship Israel's God. The author cites Septuagint in ways that adopt Gentiles into the people of Israel, and the history of Israel.
Themes: “Chosen” loyalty, holiness, suffering, and displacement
Babylonians displaced Israelites
2nd Peter, gentiles “displaced from the kingdom of God”

I love this book! I love this whole series!

2022: from my notes from my seminary class:

The book of Hebrews was NOT written by Paul! (It's not even really a letter! There is no formal greeting. It's more of a sequence of “Do this, here's what I think...” - Exhortations and exposition; A sermon and a treatise.

The author of this text is reinterpreting Hebrew scriptures as pointing to Jesus.

Date: probably mid-1st century to early 2nd century; so AFTER Paul

Audience: unclear but not to the Jewish people - It is NOT asking Jewish people to convert to Christianity.

What is this letter about?

The letter is offering encouragement to people who are being persecuted.
The author doesn't see them progressing in their faith so is encouraging them in their faith and commitment to Christ. And also to assure them that Christ is coming back. Giving confidence to them in this by showing how Jesus can be seen through the lens of Hebrew Scriptures pointing towards Jesus.

If we call this text sacred it is our responsibility to wrestle with it and make sure we do not perpetuate harm with the text and try to undo damage that has been done.

Either find a glimmer of hope in the text and focus on that or resist it and call it out, point it out and say we have to do better.

Supersessionism teaches that Christianity supersedes Judaism. (This is deeply harmful!!! Don't do this!)

We have to learn how to talk about this text without perpetuating harm.

We need to understand that prophetic literature was not about predicting the future. Prophecy is about calling out injustice and calling us toward something better - God's kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.

Quotes from the article we read by Dr. Anna Bowden:

“In contrast to an approach that attempts to redeem a difficult text, another course of action for the preacher is to confront the text, to tackle it head-on, to push back against its theology. It is good for pastors to recognize problematic passages in the biblical canon because it helps point to areas in need of growth within the Christian tradition. Confronting the text recognizes that these texts impact and shape our theology, and acknowledges that it is important to know what is damaging about our history, in order to avoid further damage in the future and perhaps to set right any damage of the past. A sermon on this passage from Hebrews might, therefore, lean in the direction of dissent.”

“First, this week's epistle is dangerous because it is supersessionist in nature. Hebrews as a whole seeks to replace, or supersede, one theology with another—to replace the theology of the Jews with the theology of Jesus. Throughout the document, the author repeatedly reinterprets the Scriptures of Israel as pointing to Jesus. Both of the psalms cited in this week's text are an example. The author uses the psalms to make an argument from Scripture that Jesus is a high priest. In other words, the author appropriates Jewish Scriptures for Christian advantage. Christians would do well to remember that Jewish theology does not recognize the foretelling of Jesus in the Jewish canon. We need to be more careful in our interpretations of Scripture not to deny the Jewish community of its own interpretation of its Scripture.”

“If Christians are not intentional with the careful interpretations of sensitive texts, they risk reading the Jewish tradition through a Christian lens and therefore misunderstanding the Jewish religion as a whole.”

“Preaching against the text requires a studied, skilled, and brave pulpiteer. The goal of any sermon is not to strip validity from a beloved text, but to demonstrate where grace may be found, even when tradition has unwittingly erred. Speaking against the Christian canon is not to abandon Christian tradition; it is to raise one voice of our tradition to confront another. This is how traditions survive; this is how Scripture finds new voice.” - from Dr. Anna Bowden's article on Hebrews 5

My favorite chapter and the one I chose to summarize and lead class discussion on was “Queer Approaches: Improper Relations with Pauline Letters” by: Joseph A. Marchal

Marchal presents queer theory as a “challenge to regimes of the normal” (210), breaking down approaches to the “clobber passages” (biblical passages that are always trotted out to clobber queer folks”) into three categories:
1) A historical-contextual approach (older)
2) Historical reconstruction? - An apologist-affirmative approach
3) A queerly resistant approach more explicitly drawing upon queer theories.

A historical-contextual demonstrates that ancient notions of sexuality were different from today. An apologist-affirmative approach offers potential examples of same-gendered relationships in the Bible. And Marchal's preferred approach is a queerly resistant one that challenges normative reading strategies. Marchal gives an overview of some basics of queer theory and then draws on queer theory to approach biblical and Pauline interpretations. He summarizes Foucault's description of normalization as where the people in power 1) compare activities 2) differentiate between them, 3) create a hierarchy of value around those activities, 4) impose a homogenized category everyone should conform to within this hierarchy, and 5) exclude those who deviate from this and are therefore deemed “abnormal.” (Kindle Location 4882)

Marchal emphasizes that queer theories teach us to “interrogate basic assumptions and critique received narratives” (Location 4909). For example, why start with Foucault and Butler instead of Audre Lorde or other BIPOC women in the field? Queer theories encourage us to question the foundations of our arguments and where they claim their authority, power, and identity comes from, even our own. In other words, queer interpretation (and all Biblical interpretation) should always be intersectional.

Key Passages:
“queer studies aims not to divide its labors between the study of various categories and dynamics of normalization. To do so would inhibit any attempt to interrogate how certain norms are created and enforced, particularly given how people socially construct the meaning of something like “sexuality” differently with and through gender, race, ethnicity, class, religion, age, ability, and national or colonial factors. Intersectional forms of analysis are needed, then—modes that grapple with how multiple factors of power and identification intersect and reinforce each other.” (Kindle Location 4897)

“One of the longest critical engagements of the operations of sexuality as it intersects with a wide range of social dynamics can be found in the work of “women of color feminists” like Audre Lorde, Barbara Smith, and Gloria Anzaldúa.3 Queer theories meet their critical potential when they recognize how the subjects of gender and sexuality are not fixed but are enmeshed and moving in trajectories within and between intersecting differences and multiple dynamics of power.” (Kindle Location 4909)

“What does seem vital, though, is to deal with how biblical arguments are used (past and present), to challenge the ethically and politically troubling uses, and to suggest more subversive and possibly even enjoyable uses of biblical argument and interpretation.” (Kindle Location 5088)


Key terms to know:
Kyriarchy - “In feminist theory, kyriarchy (/ˈkaɪriɑːrki/) is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza coined the word in 1992 to describe her theory of interconnected, interacting, and self-extending systems of domination and submission, in which a single individual might be oppressed in some relationships and privileged in others. It is an intersectional extension of the idea of patriarchy beyond gender.”

Heteronormativity - of, relating to, or based on the attitude that heterosexuality is the only “normal” and natural expression of sexuality.

Intersectionality - “the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups.”

-1 Thessalonians is the oldest of the letters - written in the 40s, maybe as early as 41 C.E.
-Scholars do not think 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul because it doesn't have the same urgency about the second coming.

“Fornication” in chapter 4 - we often read Paul as if Paul is obsessed with sex and the body, but this is not one of the places he is actually talking about sex.
In the letter's opening, Paul mentioned how they had turned away from idols (this gives us good reason to think that what follows is about idolatry and not sex!)

The Acts of Paul and Thecla is an apocryphal story of Paul the Apostle's influence on a young virgin named Thecla. It is one of the writings of the New Testament Apocrypha.

I love its approval of Thecla's preaching the Gospel, baptizing herself, and dressing in men's clothing.

Of course, several Church Fathers (i.e. Tertullian, ca 190) spoke against these texts primarily for their advocacy of women as able to preach or baptize. {rolling my eyes}