J
I think pretty much everyone should read this.
This book was published in 1994 but it started out as Nancy Eiesland's Master's thesis at Candler School of Theology. It seems significant that The Americans with Disabilities Act was just passed in 1990. She also writes out of her own experience of lifelong disability.
Eiesland argues that disabled people are a marginalized, minority group that society and churches have a responsibility to include and not discriminate against. The expectation should not be put on the disabled person to adjust and just have to figure it out for themselves as an individual. Disabled people do not need to be “fixed” and that mentality has been very damaging. Sadly, churches in the United States fought to be excluded from the requirements of The Americans with Disabilities Act so they would not have to bring their buildings up to the new accesibility requirements.
Chapter Three: The Body Politics “offers a social framework for reconceiving disability, incorporating the history of the civl rights struggle.” She examines a shift in the sociology of disability where the person with disabilities becomes the subject instead of the object of inquiry which led to “the emergence of the disability rights movement and continues to offer a theoretical construct for empowerment and liberation” for disabled people.
Chapter Four: Carnal Sins - Disability has never been religiously or theologically neutral. Eiesland talks about three themes that illustrate the theological obstacles encountered by people with disabilities seeking inclusion in Christian communities: 1) sin and disability conflation (blames the disability on the person's sin and/or lack of faith), 2) virtuous suffering, and 3) segregationist charity. Eiesland spends the rest of this chapter talking about a particular case within the American Lutheran Church where their supposed theology of access for disabled people did not match their policies for ministerial qualification that rejected many disabled people as “categorically unsuitable for ordained ministry” (70).
Chapter Five: The Disabled God - This chapter explores the revolutionary implications of the resurrected Christ as the disabled God as a divine affirmation of the wholeness of “nonconventional bodies” (87). She opens by describing an epiphany where she saw God “in a sip-puff wheelchair,” the kind used mostly by quadriplegics. She writes, “I beheld God as a survivor, unpitying and forthright. [...] This theology of liberation emerged from those conversations, our common labor for justice, and corporate reflection on symbol.”
Chapter Six: Sacramental Bodies: The main focus of this chapter is on the centrality of the Eucharist in the symbolic and actual inclusion of disabled people. In the Eucharist the disabled God. In the resurrected Christ, “the nonconventional body is recognized as sacrament” (116).
“The way of love is how we stay decent during indecent times. It's for all of us who are sitting, looking around at the world, at our leaders, saying, “Something has gone very wrong.” It's for those who are fighting hard for a better world, and feeling very, very tired.”
“Hope is the energy that keeps us going when the gravity of reality would otherwise defeat us.”
“the power of that love is often mediated through the people who love us. And it's those people and that love that pull us through and keep us going when we don't have the strength.”
“Self-hatred is an easy trap to fall into, not only for Black Americans but for anyone society doesn't roll out the red carpet for. Self-hate creates a kind of internal schism where we lose the confidence of our own intuition. It's Du Bois's “double-consciousness” all over again.”
“Self-hate creates a kind of internal schism where we lose the confidence of our own intuition.”
“When we are at peace with ourselves, our true voice becomes clear and resonant, among the swift and varied changes of the world. We hear the words of our own needs and desires, and can articulate them confidently to others.”
“What I've learned is that you can't open someone else's heart without being true to your own. If I hadn't learned this, you probably wouldn't be reading this book, because no one would have asked me to write it. Part of the reason why my appearance at the royal wedding stopped folks in their tracks was that people couldn't believe they were seeing a Black American preacher just being himself in front of an audience of the royal family and the British aristocracy.”
“Your Graces, The resolution before us will be painful for many in The Episcopal Church to receive. Many of us have committed ourselves and our church to being “a house of prayer for all people,” as the Bible says, where all are truly welcome. Our commitment to be an inclusive church is not based on a social theory or capitulation to the ways of the culture, but on our belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all. While I understand that many disagree with us, our decision regarding marriage is based on the belief that the words of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians are true for the church today: “All who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ.”2 But I must say to you in all love and honesty that for so many who are committed to following Jesus in the way of love and being a church that lives that love, this decision will bring real pain. For fellow disciples of Jesus in our church who are gay or lesbian, this will bring more pain. For many who have felt and been rejected by the church because of who they are, for many who have felt and been rejected by families and communities, our church opening itself in love was a sign of hope. And this will add pain on top of pain.”
“Racial reconciliation and care of creation aren't distinct at all. They are part of the same issue. The very people we have made invisible—ripped from their land, marginalized, and impoverished—are the people who are now shouldering the worst of our environmental harms.”
“It's not easy to tell a painful story. At first, it feels like reliving the trauma. You feel vulnerable in sharing it; sometimes you really are vulnerable when you are telling a truth that people aren't ready to hear. And yet it gives you power. Telling the story, over time, gives you ownership over the experience, and then distances you from it.”
“The way of love is a commitment to seeking the good and well-being of others. When we truly do that, we all are blessed. In fact, if we all made the commitment—to loving beyond our nationality, our ethnicity, our politics, our religion, or any other difference—we and the earth itself would be blessed.”
In the preface, Jon Sobrino talks about how his co-editor, Ignacio Ellacuría, was murdered in 1989, two years after they had begun planning the structure, themes, and authors for this book. They had already received most of the manuscripts when Ellacuría was murdered at the Central American University, “along with his fellow Jesuits Segundo Montes, Joaquín López y López, Juan Ramón Moreno, Ignacio Martín Baró, Amando López, and two humble women of the people, Julia Elba and her daughter Celina” (Loc 98). On top of the devastating and tragic loss of their lives, their manuscripts were burned when the soldiers destroyed their offices. Sobrino writes, “the martyrdom of Ignacio Ellacuría, theologian, author, and co-editor—is fundamental, concrete reality, and to a certain extent irreplaceable for an understanding of the content of this book” (Loc 98). He says the only way the theology of liberation can be understood is amidst oppression.
This book highlights the main themes in liberation theology as organized by a systematic approach to theology. It emphasizes that the liberation theologian is not someone sitting comfortably in an ivory-tower in academia. Instead, they are “theological activists” with “one foot in the center of reflection and the other in the life of the community.” The theology of liberation is done from the perspective of the poor, fighting for their liberation. Liberation is the shaping principle of this theology. This theology (and this book) seeks to give a voice to the oppressed, to stand against injustice. The emphasis is always on praxis - that the theological reflection is borne out of the lived experience and lived theology on the ground: “The radical originality of the theology of liberation lies in the insertion of the theologian in the real life of the poor, understood as a collective, conflictive, and active reality. [...] This first act of liberation theology marks the anteriority of a faith praxis over the theological theoretization of that praxis (second act)” (Loc 332). Along with this focus on praxis and “God's preferential option for the poor”, as Gutierrez calls it, the other big theme that emerges is the central focus on the reign of God as hope but also as the thing we are called to work towards now as we seek to liberate people from oppressive structures even here on earth:
“The reality of the Reign of God is such that, if, by an impossiblity, human beings had no hope, its content would be a logical contradiction. Hope, then, is essentially necessary for an understanding of what the Reign of God is. [,,,] Not that the poor (at least in Latin America) have no transcendent hope in a resurrection; they surely do. But for them, to live right now would be as much of a miracle as to live after death. They see the opposite of hope not only in death, but in the impossibility of life here and now. This is why their hope, when they have it, is so radical. The theology of liberation, then, asserts that in order to grasp what the Reign of God is, not just any hope will suffice. Only the hope of the poor will do. The hope of the poor must, in some manner, be adopted as one's own. But once this has been accomplished, one also has a better systematic understanding of what the Reign of God ought to be: a promise of life in the face of the anti-Reign.” (Loc 1732)
I loved this book so much! It is one of my favorite books I've ever read. This allegory/fable reminds me in some ways of The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.
“Most gulls don't bother to learn more than the simplest facts of flight – how to get from shore to food and back again, for most gulls it is not flying that matters, but eating. For this gull, though, it was not eating that mattered, but flight.”
*****
“He spoke of very simple things- that it is right for a gull to fly, that freedom is the very nature of his being, that whatever stands against that freedom must be set aside, be it ritual or superstition or limitation in any form.
“Set aside,” came a voice from the multitude, “even if it be the Law of the Flock?”
“The only true law is that which leads to freedom,” Jonathan said. “There is no other.”
James H. Cone (1938-2018) published this book in 1970. In the preface to the 1986 edition, Cone writes, “This book cannot be understood without a keen knowledge of the civil rights and black power movements of the 1960s and a general comprehension of nearly four hundred years of slavery and segregation in North America, both of which were enacted into law by government and openly defended as ordained of God by most white churches and their theologians” (Loc 186). Cone also says his style of doing theology was “influenced more by Malcolm X than by Martin Luther King, Jr.” (Loc 255). Peter J Paris points out in his forward to the 2020 edition that there was little to no conversation in their seminaries in the mid-twentieth century about Martin Luther King, Jr, and the civil rights movement as it was considered out of bounds for theological inquiry. This silence around all of that is what Cone would have been experiencing in seminary. Paris also tells us that Cone was not familiar with the rise of liberation theology in Latin America at the time he wrote this book. Instead, he took his seminary training and used those tools to construct his own theology of liberation (Loc 84). I appreciate what Cone wrote in his preface to the 1986 edition acknowledging his failure to pay attention to sexism in the black community and society at large, and so he changed the exclusive language from 1970 to more inclusive language (Loc 266).
Cone directly states in the preface to the 1986 edition: “A Black Theology of Liberation was first published in 1970, and it was written for and to black Christians (and also to whites who had the courage to listen) in an attempt to answer the question that I and others could not ignore, namely, “what has the gospel of Jesus Christ to do with the black struggle for justice in the United States?” (Loc 186).
Cone interacts extensively with many of the classical (white) theologians, especially Karl Barth. He mentions Paul Tillich a lot too, and Bultmann. I thought it was interesting that in the preface to the 1986 version he said that if he were writing the book at that time he would not follow the theological structure “that begins with a methodology based on divine revelation, and then proceeds to explicate the doctrines of God, humanity, Christ, church, world, and eschatology” (Loc 319). His reason for saying that is that he now believes that “Revelation as the word of God, witnessed in scripture and defined by the creeds and dogmas of Western Christianity, is too limiting to serve as an adequate way of doing theology today” (319).
This book is James Cone's “attempt to construct a new perspective for the discipline of theology, using the Bible and the black struggle for freedom as its chief sources” (Loc 329). Liberation became the “organizing principle” (329). He explores the implications of this within the framework of classical theology, fully showing off all of the training he had received in seminary about the traditional (white) theologians. Chapters three through seven tackle Revelation, God, human beings, Jesus, the church, the world, and eschatology, always emphasizing “blackness” as opposed to “whiteness.” He is writing a theology that is liberated from the racism of white supremacy and oppression. Over and over again he says in many different ways, that any message or theology that is not about the liberation of the poor is not Christ's message. It's not the Gospel. It's not Christian theology. In his preface, he writes, “It is my contention that Christianity is essentially a religion of liberation. The function of theology is that of analyzing the meaning of that liberation for the oppressed so they can know that their struggle for political, social, and economic justice is consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any message that is not related to the liberation of the poor in a society is not Christ's message. Any theology that is indifferent to the theme of liberation is not Christian theology” (Loc 345).
I read Kathy Escobar's book, “Faith Shift: Finding Your Way Forward When Everything You Believe Is Coming Apart” back in 2014 and I believe that was the first time I heard of James Fowler's book, “Stages of Faith.”
Brian McLaren is drawing on Fowler's idea along with many others, including Richard Rohr's book, “Falling Upward”, as he synthesizes research into a four-stage faith model. He uses an analogy of the rings of a tree that include and build on the previous stages. He tries to emphasize that later stages are not better or more advanced but it's hard not to think that they are. And as the title of the book suggests, McLaren sees doubt as vital to our process of moving and growing between stages. on our faith journey.
The four stages he discusses are:
Stage One: Simplicity - dualistic/binary thinking, a focus on right or wrong, and pleasing authority figures.
Stage Two: Complexity - pragmatic, focused on success or failure, achieving goals, being free and independent
Stage Three: Perplexity - critical/relativistic, values honesty/authenticity, sees through appearances to reality; skeptical of everything, beliefs, and institutions
Stage Four: Harmony - integral/holistic, focus on inclusion and transcendence, wants to find connection, make a contribution, values being compassionate, seeking the common good, assumes we are all connected, part of a greater whole.
Overall, this is a great book that I think many will find very helpful if they have been through any kind of “deconstruction” period in their faith. It is one of my favorites by Brian McLaren and I've read a lot of his books! (A Generous Orthodoxy was wonderful and a big catalyst for some of my own evolving faith journey.)
If you want to know how we got here (as in 81% of white evangelicals voting for Trump in 2016 and continuing to support him, all the way to what happened on January 6, 2021...) this is a good book to read.
Here are some quotes:
“For conservative white evangelicals, the “good news” of the Christian gospel has become inextricably linked to a staunch commitment to patriarchal authority, gender difference, and Christian nationalism, and all of these are intertwined with white racial identity. Many Americans who now identify as evangelicals are identifying with this operational theology—one that is Republican in its politics and traditionalist in its values.”
“Christian nationalism—the belief that America is God's chosen nation and must be defended as such—serves as a powerful predictor of intolerance toward immigrants, racial minorities, and non-Christians.”
“Evangelicals hadn't betrayed their values. Donald Trump was the culmination of their half-century-long pursuit of a militant Christian masculinity. He was the reincarnation of John Wayne, sitting tall in the saddle, a man who wasn't afraid to resort to violence to bring order, who protected those deemed worthy of protection, who wouldn't let political correctness get in the way of saying what had to be said or the norms of democratic society keep him from doing what needed to be done. Unencumbered by traditional Christian virtue, he was a warrior in the tradition (if not the actual physical form) of Mel Gibson's William Wallace. He was a hero for God-and-country Christians in the line of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Oliver North, one suited for Duck Dynasty Americans and American Christians. He was the latest and greatest high priest of the evangelical cult of masculinity.”
“The frequency of these instances, and the tendency of evangelicals to diminish or dismiss cases of abuse in their own communities, suggests that evangelicals' response to allegations of abuse in the era of Trump cannot be explained by political expediency alone. Rather, these tendencies appear to be endemic to the movement itself.”
“In the end, Doug Wilson, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, James Dobson, Doug Phillips, and John Eldredge all preached a mutually reinforcing vision of Christian masculinity—of patriarchy and submission, sex and power. It was a vision that promised protection for women but left women without defense, one that worshiped power and turned a blind eye to justice, and one that transformed the Jesus of the Gospels into an image of their own making.”
“evangelical support for Trump was no aberration, nor was it merely a pragmatic choice. It was, rather, the culmination of evangelicals' embrace of militant masculinity, an ideology that enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power, at home and abroad.”
Just read this review.
Then read these books:
Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church and Inspired and Wholehearted Faith by Rachel Held Evans with Jeff Chu by Rachel Held Evans
The Bible Tells Me So by Peter Ennsby Peter EnnsHow the Bible Actually Works: In Which I Explain How An Ancient, Ambiguous, and Diverse Book Leads Us to Wisdom Rather Than Answers—and Why That's Great Newsby Peter Ennsread Brian McLaren's Faith After Doubt
My friend, Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, wrote a book! And it's out in the world now! You can buy it and everything!
Read this book if you need to be reminded that there is a vast history of Christians who have been about the work of liberation, who side with the vulnerable against racist, sexist, and economic systems that prevent human flourishing. Read this book if you are tired of people assuming that to be a Christian means you have to vote Republican. Read this book if you want to be encouraged and inspired to follow Jesus in feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, taking care of the sick, and visiting those in prison (Matthew 25:35-36).
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:
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”
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