Jonah and the Whale

Ben Shattuck examines a history of the discussion and speculation and fictions about whales swallowing humans…

An idea’s been floating around for some time that whales more than chewed people — that they swallowed them, and people might have survived in the stomach. Jonah’s story came first, and then there were rumors from the 19th century Yankee Whale Fishery — whaling ships leaving New York and New England ports for years on the open ocean. I’d like to believe in swallowings, but it’s tough. There is no air in the stomach, for one. There are acids. And if we are talking about sperm whales, which we are most of the time, there is the deadly passage through the 30-foot jaws lined with 8-inch teeth.

Still, you’d like to think it’s possible. You want to believe in an animal that can fit you inside them — that you might be consumed not piece-by-piece, mouthful-by-mouthful as sharks and bears would eat you, but wholly; to be encased as your full self, womb-like. You want to believe in big animals like you did when you were a kid. You want to be powerless as you are leaning into hurricane winds or with your eyes closed or looking into the ocean…. [Read more...]

Pardons, Forgiveness and America’s Justice

A Christian governor, Haley Barbour, pardoned a bundle of criminals and he did so on the basis of his Christian theology of forgiveness. What he did is a tradition in Mississippi.

What say you?

“The historical power of clemency by the governor to pardon felons is rooted in the Christian idea of giving second chances,” said the two-term governor who left office last week after filing the pardons and sentence commutations, including that of 17 murderers, with the Secretary of State’s Office.

“I’m not saying I’ll be perfect, that nobody who received clemency will ever do anything wrong. I’m not infallible and nobody else is,” Boston Herald quoted him as saying Friday.

Barbour told reporters that his state had Jews, Hindus, Muslims as well as atheists and agnostics, “but most Mississippians profess to be Christians of some kind.” He said he and his wife, Marsha, are “evangelical Christians, Presbyterians.” And Christianity, he added, “teaches us forgiveness and second chances. I believe in second chances. And I try hard to be forgiving.”

But Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, saw the former Republican governor’s move as possibly being unconstitutional. He went to court Wednesday to stop the releases, alleging violation of a required notification to the public. The release of 21 inmates was put on hold pending an enquiry…. [Read more...]

Adam in Genesis and Paul (RJS)

There is little doubt that a major fault-line in the integration of a Christian understanding of the world with the major findings in modern science is centered on the issue of Adam. We saw this in the response to the posts last week on Tuesday (Pastors Unconvinced … Now What?), Wednesday (Science, Evolution, and the Bible), and Thursday (Testing Scripture on Creation and Fall). In the introduction to his new book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, Pete Enns points out that the age of the earth is not a game changer for Christianity. Great age, like the loss of a flat earth, or a stationary earth, center of the universe (whatever “universe” meant in earlier cultures)  can be integrated into traditional Christian beliefs with very little significant impact. Many conservative Christians, although not all, will agree with Pete that a young earth is not a necessary consequence of the reading of Genesis.

To the contrary, it is clear that, from a scientific point of view, the bible does not always describe physical reality accurately; it simply speaks in an ancient idiom, as one might expect ancient people to do.  It is God’s Word, but it has an ancient view of the natural world, not a modern one. (p. xiv)

Genesis 1 is not really the problem. Genesis 2,3  … here is the problem. Pete continues:

Evolution, however, is a game changer. The general science-and-faith rapprochement is not adequate because evolution uniquely strikes at central issues of the Christian faith. Evolution tells us that human beings are not the product of a special creative act by God as the Bible says, but are the end product of a process of trial-and-error adaptation and natural selection. … Some Christians reconcile their faith with evolution by saying that God initiates and guides this process, which is fine (and which I believe), but that is not the point here. The tensions that evolution creates with the Bible remain, and they are far more significant than whether the earth is at the center of the cosmos, how old it is, and whether it is round or flat. (p. xiv)

But the core of the problem isn’t really Genesis 2 and 3 either. It is Paul and Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Evolutionary biology leads to the inescapable conclusion, from the standpoint of the science alone, that the first Adam with whom Paul contrasts Christ as the last Adam, never existed as a distinct individual from whom all other humans descend. Pete suggests that the pressing question is not “can science and religion be reconciled?” This rather generic question can be dealt with in a convincing manner (well convincing to some anyway) using philosophical arguments, natural theology, intuitive arguments about meaning and purpose. The pressing question is more tightly focused: “can evolution and a biblically rooted Christian faith coexist?”

Where is the most pressing issue from your point of view?

Does Paul’s reference to Christ as the last Adam, a life-giving spirit, ring hollow if there was no first man Adam who became a living being?

[Read more...]

Deborah: Her Crucial Role in the Discussion

From CBE:

This piece is by Dr. Nijay Gupta (MDiv , Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, PhD, University of Durham) is an author and assistant professor of biblical studies at Seattle Pacific Seminary. In his free time, Dr. Gupta spends time with his family, traveling, and eating good food.

This article previously appeared on the blog of the Center for Biblical and Theological Education at Seattle Pacific University (www.spu.edu/cbte).

* * * * * *

When it comes to the issue of whether woman can and should be in leadership (and/or teaching positions) in the church, there are two obvious views—either the Bible says they can and should, or it demands that they can’t andshouldn’t. For many people, the matter simply comes down to quoting verses from the Bible. “The Bible clearly says…” (Can I make a suggestion? Let’s stop beginning debates this way!)

Why is Deborah so ignored in our churches?

For some, you simply need to turn to the apostle Paul. Doesn’t he write, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12)? What does this tell us? It seems to say that women have been given a general command to refrain from seeking positions of authority and instruction in the church. What is the rationale? Paul continues, ”For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Now, if Paul were simply trying to communicate that he universally does not permit women to teach and have authority, and that he still values and supports women in general, it would be odd to use this kind of rationale. It seems like Paul is saying that because Eve was deceived (having something to do with being created second), she is unqualified to teach because her intelligence, wisdom, or shrewdness (call it whatever you will) does not reach the same height as Adam’s. (I am going to argue that this is rubbish, but I am trying to go along with a certain reading of this text for a reason.)

Does Paul intend to say that women should not teach because they lack a certain kind of intellectual capacity suitable for that task? [Read more...]