Showing posts with label Seminary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seminary. Show all posts

Friday, May 16, 2008

I'm Done

I graduate tomorrow and today was spent finishing up the loose ends. Here are the first words of the last paper I wrote during my seminary career:

There have been many “F” words in the English language.Without going through specific examples, the thrusting of air between the lower curled lip in contact with the back of one’s upper teeth usually precedes the influx of air into the listener’s lungs. Perhaps no such word has caused as much damage in Christian circles as the following “f” word: Fundamentalist.
Now go read Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture.

Monday, February 4, 2008

The Beginning of the End

Today is the first day of my last semester of Seminary. It marks not only that end, but the, at least for a time, an end to my academic career which has spanned over the past 22 years of my life.

It was rather surreal sitting in class as I was thinking about this twice over Odyssey of mine. The end finally in sight, praying about what I'm going to be doing in the future. At the current moment I'm praying about moving to Kansas City in June to plant Redeemer Fellowship. A two year prospectus was sent to me about 2 weeks ago from Kevin Cawley and Kris McGee. It appears to be exactly what I want to do, but I'm trying to take my time making that decision-- something I'm not normally known for doing. I hope to have a decision in the next 2 weeks.

Until then I have the following classes to focus on during my last semester:

  • Christian Ethics and the Church
  • Living Responsibly in the Realm of God
  • Embodiment
The final requirement is my Chaplaincy at Northwestern Memorial Hospital (CPE). It takes up around 30 hours a week altogether. It has been much better than what I thought it would be though. To best illustrate how I've enjoyed it, I thought I'd give a top ten.

Top 10 Things I've enjoyed about CPE so far:
10. Cute nurses
9. Commuting via the EL
8. Waking up very early (surprising I know)
7. Talking with patients
6. Cute nurses
5. Praying with patients
4. Moving my understanding of Scripture from an academic knowledge to a pastoral wisdom.
3. Practicing Dual Citizenship
2. Cute nurses
1. Being there for people in times of hurt and need

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Dual Citizens: Living as Culturally-Engaged Christians in First Peter

It seems like it would be good for more than two or three people to read something that I worked so hard on. So over the next couple of days or weeks, I'm going to post my paper I wrote last week.

Introduction

Since Abraham, the people of God have been wrestling with how to interact with the cultures around them. Abraham prayed for and interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah, however eminent their destruction. Jacob deceived everyone with whom he came into contact. Joseph rose through the ranks of Egyptian royalty eventually using his authority to bring reconciliation to his brothers, who sold him into slavery. When Israel’s sanctuary in Egypt turned into slavery, Moses had to interact with Pharaoh for their freedom. When Joshua led the people of Israel across the Jordan, they had to fight with those who already lived there for the land that God had given them. Even when the kingdom of Israel was established, the Philistines, the Amalekites, the Ammonites, and the Syrians were constantly asserting their culture over that of the Israelites. Lucien Legrand, in his book The Bible on Culture, shows how, throughout the Scriptures, the people of God both rejected and embraced the cultures around them. In the history of Israel, God raised up persons to play the prophet, which warned against establishing themselves as a kingdom—like all the other nations—and at the same he selected for them a king to rule over them.[1] Moving into the New Testament, Legrand looks at both Jesus and Paul. Both lived and moved through different cultures. Jesus, embodying the culture around him, spoke Aramaic and obeyed the Torah, but he did not fit neatly into the subcultures of the day either.[2] Paul, on the other hand, fit himself into all categories. Legrand goes so far as to have three chapters on the man, which focus on his Jewish-ness, his Greek-ness, and the integration of the two.[3] Paul, himself, writes in 1 Corinthians 9:19 that though he is free from all, he has made himself a servant of all—to the Jew a Jew and to the Greek a Greek. To summarize, the interactions between the people of God and the cultures around them have found many different forms throughout the history of redemption. This paper seeks to show that the former conversations between Christ and Culture are no longer valid because they are based in Christendom. Instead we need a different cultural hermeneutic that is based on the concept of dual citizenship found in 1 Peter.



[1] Lucien Legrand, The Bible on Culture, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2004), 18.

[2] Ibid., 83-96.

[3] Ibid., 115-151.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Catching Up

I've been extremely busy with school the last week and a half. Papers are beginning to be thought of-- some close to being written. All the work that I had been working through slowly is needing a few extra efforts to get back on track. Books need to be read. Passages need to be translated.

Right now, I'm working mainly in Ephesians, doing the worksheet and eventually translating. It's the only real class that I have to attend each week. I'd never spent much time in Ephesians-- enough for it to really affect my life, at least, but it's beginning to sneak in-- in my prayers especially. It's giving me language to express my heart, my emotions. It teaches me what God has done for me, even though I deserve none of it. It's really quite amazing. Reading about how we were once dead in our sins, focused on the physical world around us and being oppressed by the spirit of the age, you feel the weight with which we need to be redeemed. And then Paul puts for three little words, transliterated ha de theos. In English, it comes across in two: But God. Think about that for a moment. But. God. With stark contrast to the preceding three verses, Paul lets us know that despite our situation, God has broken in and done something amazing, that while we were dead in our sins, he has made us alive in Christ.

Klyne made the point simply: "Never forget that the Gospel is theocentric." In other words, God is at the center of the Gospel, not us.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Sex and the Lies We Tell

One of the things that I truly enjoy about being at Seminary is the chance to hear some great speakers. A couple times a year North Park brings in Biblical scholars and theologians to speak on a variety of topics ranging from the Johannine literature to the Trinity. This time they brought in someone to talk about the Trinity, as well as the more interesting topic of sex--Lauren Winner.

Winner, a converted Jew, has written a few books, including one called Real Sex. I've only been able to read a couple chapters of Real Sex, but it's on the ever-extensive and constantly growing list of books to read. In her hour that she had today though, she spoke on the four lies the Church tells about extramarital sex, explicitly or implicitly.

  1. You'll feel bad afterwards. Youth pastors across America love to proclaim this, but in truth, there are many different emotions one may feel after sex ranging from elation to hung over. All sin promotes itself as being a pleasing and satisfying endeavor-- if the serpent had told Eve that she would feel bad after the apple, we would certainly be in a different place.
  2. While men are animals when it comes to sex, women have no sex drive. This is propagated with the purest of intentions of protecting our daughters against the sex-driven pubescent boy. The reality is that both men and women have sex drives. We need to educate accordingly.
  3. Premarital sex will leave you with scars and ghosts. While there are certainly consequences of having sex outside of the confines of marriage, we do not carry the ghosts of past sexual partners into our marriage beds.
  4. Marriage is the end all of sexual delinquency and final maturity into adulthood. All too often the Church promotes marriage as the final step into adulthood. Either through only choosing families to light the advent candles at Christmas or sitting the 28 year old single woman at the children's table, while the 24 year old married sibling is at the "adult" table, single Christians are left out of adulthood. Further, Winner spoke of marriage being another step in sexual formation with its own inherent struggles.
Winner pointed out that when the Church begins to talk about sex it always begins with the negative, when in fact God always declares sex to be good. And while the negatives are necessary to proclaim, the Church needs to extol the positive aspects of sex. Something else worth exploring that she touched only briefly on referred to people's thought that they govern their own bodies. She pointed out that in baptism we are joining our bodies to the body of Christ (also known as the Church) and we no longer, as if ever, have rights over what else to which we join our bodies. This seems to me a strong point of connection to begin to speak of chastity to post-moderns. The Church certainly should have a lot to say about the goodness with which God has created sex and we need to stop being drowned out by the culture around us.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

(In)errancy

There are a lot of places where North Park and I don't align. For the most part I'm fine with that. I've learned to pick my battles. I've learned about the correct arenas of those battles. I know that I'm not going to convince anyone in a classroom setting of my theological positions. I'm not worried about convincing people anymore, rather than an understanding of where I'm coming from, which usually means grabbing some coffee and sitting down for a patient conversation. And I've learned that blogging about something and thinking no one will ever read it is a false assumption to make. So I don't make that assumption anymore.

However, beyond our differences in theology-- my stance on women in ministry and my strongly held Calvinistic beliefs-- even the primacy with which I hold Scripture is dashed aside. When I talk about the Bible I use words like "inerrancy" and "infallibility." Language in these tones, however, never get used at North Park. Why would one refer to the Bible as inerrant? I thought we were so passed that.

Honestly I don't understand what people have to hold onto, if they don't affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. No, I'm not naive enough to say that there aren't inconsistencies and discrepancies between one book or another. Nor am I naive enough to say that stories and metaphors don't exist in the Bible. There are literary genres in Scripture. I also contend that Scripture is insufficient to describe the fullness of God's glory, but on this side of the mirror, this is as clear as we can see.

But more than all that, this is God's word. Are those who don't affirm the inerrancy of Scripture calling God errant? If we believe 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 that all Scripture is God-breathed, then what we today affirm as Scripture has come from the mouth of God, and unless one thinks that God makes mistakes, or errs, then I don't see how we can make the same claim on Scripture. But then again, 1 & 2 Timothy have authorship issues and who even gives a crap about what Paul says anyway. He wrote at a specific time to a specific people addressing a specific issue and we're not naive enough to think that this still applies to us today, do we?

What blows my mind is how the Covenant can use words like "perfect" to describe how the Scripture functions, but not affirm it's inerrancy. Who then decides what's errant or inerrant? How do we make these judgment calls? And then how do we explain to our flocks that this section of Scripture is right, but this stuff here is phooey, so don't believe that, cause that'd just be stupid. Do we ride the wave of culture to inform our consciences as to what is valid in God's word? I contend that is a dangerous wave to ride.

Are we really so bold before God to toss aside his word and tell the Creator that we're the ones that decide what is true or not?

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

The Quotable Snodgrass

Tuesday's are an incredibly long day, as I've mentioned before, but my class on Romans is a good reason to keep going, even when I'm about to crash.

Romans is taught by Klyne Snodgrass, a well-respected New Testament scholar, who refers to people like N.T. Wright as Tom, J.D.G. Dunn as Jimmy, and mentioned in class that he called up Bruce Metzger-- who is responsible for us having a Greek New Testament today-- as if it was an everyday occurrence. It's an extremely cognitive class and I had the brilliant idea to take it for credit, instead of auditing. Klyne is putting the finishing touches on a book on the parables of Jesus, which should be a goldmine. At the risk of infringing on copyright laws (of speech) and taking things completely out of context, I offer you some great quotes by the man himself.

"Grace is the perimeter within which Christians live."

"Faith is not what you do with your brain, it's what you live."

"To have faith is not saying something about you, but about the God in whom you trust."

"When you fail to honor God, humanity is dishonored."

"Worship precedes obedience."

"The wrath of God is in the revelation of the righteousness of God."

"There is no sin that is not constitutional-- we are always dealing with identity."

"Can you draw near to this God and not be affected by him? I think not."

"I don't care what you do with the genitive-- the focus is on the cross."

Monday, January 29, 2007

Have Some Class

A new semester of Seminary has started again. So far, I've only had one class and it's been good. It's the professor's second semester here at North Park, so no one's really sure what to expect, but I've only heard good things. Plus he's really interesting to listen to; he's Scottish. And other than him not wearing a kilt, nor having read hair, it's kinda like have a Bible class taught by Grounds Keeper Willie. I'm looking forward to him getting really excited about something.

For the record my classes this semester are as follows: New Testament 2; Heaven, Hell and New Creation; Pastoral Care and Counseling; and Romans. All should be at least beneficial. I've never had a class with the Pastoral Care professor, but I know we stand on opposite sides of the proverbial aisle--so pray for that. "Hell" should be interesting. The professor I had last semester for Worship is teaching it, but with its name and the fact that it's at 8 in the morning, you should be praying for me. Romans is a class that I've been looking forward to since I got here and I'm finally in it. It's a thick book and the professor's probably the best here, so it'll probably kick my butt--again pray for that.

Why don't you just pray for me in general? That'd be nice. I definitely need it.

Grace and Peace.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Mm Mm Good

Seminary classes can be really interesting sometimes, especially when you have 10+ hours in the car to think about the semester you just finished. Even more so when it's the first semester that you've finished all the work within the semester. North Park's in Chicago, Chicago and so we get people from all parts of the city and all parts of the faith traditions that are represented here. More than one would think, we get a lot of people from the South-side, which, according to my roommate, is just as ethnically diverse as the North-side, but without all the glitz--which is probably a good thing. Many of our South-side brothers and sisters come from more vocal traditions than the rest of us. (It seems Presbyterians and Covenantors have a few things in common.) During lectures, one can hear "mmm" or a few "Amens," and an occasional "Preach IT, Brother [or Sister]!"

During most car rides, I listen to sermons or talks, along with the usual plethora of music. Today, I listened to Dr. Timothy Keller's talks from the Reform & Resurge Conference 2006. He's the Senior Pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC. In his three talks, he spoke on "Being the Church in our Culture," "Preaching the Gospel," and "Doing Justice." I can't begin to do them justice even though I've listened to them several times now, so I'll resort mainly to the descriptions of them from theresurgence.com. "Being the Church in Our Culture" puts a lot of emphasis on doing Church in the cities, having a better understanding of the Gospel, integrating their faith with their jobs, committing to the good of the city and contextualizing the Gospel. In his second talk, "Preach the Gospel" he spoke on preaching the gospel as the building of God's Kingdom through people being redeemed by the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross, combining older evangelical thought with the pervasive postmodern outlook. In "Doing Justice" he provides the first Gospel centered explanation of being justice-oriented that I have heard--and I've been at a justice-focused seminary for 2.5 years--speaking to what is justice, as defined by the Bible, what it means to do justice, who should do it, and how you can be one of those people. It's well-worth your time and should bring you to think of Campbell's Soup--mm, mm, good.

P.S. I'm not trying to side-step any more conversation about Women in Ministry. I'm just writing what's going on in my life right now. Plus I'll be in New Testament 2 this next semester, and have a feeling we might run across a few verses on the topic.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Frangalian?

The most annoying question a guy like me can be asked is: "Room for cream?" This happens whenever I find myself in a coffee shop, trying to figure out how grande is actually small and if the words chalked onto the board behind the counter are French, Italian, Spanish or some combination of the three. Frangalian? Anyway. As I've said before I like my coffee with beans and water. Don't serve it to me cold. Don't add flavors. Don't try to sweeten it. Don't muck it up.

Why does this dude keep talking about his coffee?

First, I'm trying to convince all of you to drink it this way. Second, the most efficient way for Christians to get anything done is over coffee, of which I've sat down twice with my sisters and hacked out some understanding between us.

I know it's been a while since I posted about anything. School work had to be done. Thanksgiving was upon us. More school work had to be done. But instead of mass marketing my theology tapping at keys and burning my retinas, I got to have face time with some real people, asking real questions, and hammering out real answers. We opened the Scriptures together and philosophized and theologized. For me, it was extremely beneficial. I can only hope the same for them. Not that I convinced them of my particular viewpoint, but that we are able to come to a better understanding of where we're both coming from and where we can sharpen one another.

Hopefully, when the semester dies down, I'll be able to start posting on a more regular basis.

Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Coffee Filters

I love coffee. I love it. I drink it strong and black. When I go to Starbucks, I don't get room for cream. However, I rarely go to Starbucks. I order my coffee straight from Costa Rica-- always whole bean-- by the box and I go through about a bag a week. I'm very specific about the coffee I like, not that I won't drink other coffees, but the one that gets me going is Cafe Britt Tres Rios Valdivia.

I used to brew with a french press, a very delicate process of boiling the water, grinding the beans coarsely, pouring the water over the top of the beans and letting it sit for five mintues, before plunging it down. This makes some wonderfully aromatic coffee. The problem I found is that there would be coffee "dust"-- for lack of a better word-- that would not get plunged down, so when I would pour a cup I would get sediment making the coffee gritty toward the end. Later, I switched to a coffee maker that uses a gold filter. This allows for the water to run through the beans into the carafe without going through paper. However, to some degree I still get grit.

I've been talking to a lot of people about my blog-- it seems to have gotten some recognition. To be honest, I'm not even sure how anybody found this site! That's not the issue though. In writing a somewhat emotionally charged blog, I failed to recognize that the language I was using would be offensive. I sinned. In trying to brew a strong pot of rhetoric, I failed to see all the grit that was coming through the filter. My sarcasm got the best of me. I want to publically apologize for my words that offended anyone. And while I had no intention to denegrate by the use of feminine language, I did. So I ask for forgiveness from those I offended overtly or covertly. I do not want my language to cause the same damage to females that I so vehemenately am against (the damage, not the females).

James writes this about the strength of the tongue. "For we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" (3:2-5).

I am happy about the discussion it has garnered and I look forward to sitting down over a strong brew to continue the conversation. And I'll continue to post on the issues related to massive topic that is Women in Ministry.

May You, Father, guard our mouths and our words from doing damage to others. May You make them to cause blessing and not cursing. May You watch over us to help further Your Kingdom and the proclamation of Your Son, Jesus, in whose Name we pray, Amen.

Sunday, November 5, 2006

Nightcrawlers, EVERYWHERE!

My mom bought me a sweetly designed can-opener when my old crappy one broke. It cuts around the side of the lid, so as to not leave any sharp edges to cut one's self on-- safety first! I hope that's the device used to open this proverbial can of worms and that we leave each other sharper, not cut, from these discussions. I have, however, contracted carpal tunnel trying to keep up with the comments that I've received. Woof. I'll refrain from the sarcasm, as much as possible, on this one, cause I'm not a hurting, judgemental, repressed effeminate male. (Okay, maybe just a little sarcasm-- it's a Biblical literary device, read Jeremiah). I want what I've received: communication. Open dialogue. That means two points of view, two voices, speaking at equal volumes refraining from "ad-hominem."

First, or second, depending on how one reads the above, I would love to sit down with anyone (including you, Ingrid) for coffee. Please. Seriously. No bull. The position is so misunderstood here at North Park and by the egalitarians, that ad hominem-- name calling-- and I would include, labeling, which may be the same, has happened everytime the subject has come up. EVERYTIME. Pop shots are taken at white middle-class males in a variety of arenas, ranging from class to chapel to announcements. If you haven't noticed, start.

Next-- cause I don't know where I'm at-- I'd like to apologize for my own ad hominem, because I certainly didn't intend that to happen. But if my "angry middle-aged women" comment seemed off color, then attendance to Wednesday's section of Leadership and Empowering the Laity for Church Growth would perhaps have cleared that up. For that reason I don't want to mention any names, but those who were there, hopefully, can testify. But for those of you asking, "Where's the Beef?" Grab that big beautiful steak knife, my friends, it's dinner time.

[I'm going to be dealing with these in slices, cause the roast was pretty big when it came out of the oven. Today will be Worth and Wills and the Trinity. I'll be getting to Real Men and Women's Leadership and Strength later in the week.]

Worth. Our worth does not derive from what we do or the roles we play. I find too often that we, as humans, relegate our value to what we do in this life, how much money we make-- or don't-- our family, our bloodlines, our positions at our job, etc. This leads almost immediately to the devaluation of women, poor, and minorities (in America). So women who stay at home to raise their children, instead of working their way up the corporate ladder are no bag of chips. So those girls that dream of being mothers and at the thought of a child or the coo of a newborn are looked at having a less than adequate idea of who they can be. Instead, we are to look at our worth from God's perspective who does "not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature..." (1 Samuel 16:7). We find our worth in Genesis 1:27, "...God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." We humans were made in the image of God. We were made after the "likeness" of our God, who created the universe and everything in it. We are distinct in this nature. Humans are the only created beings that are given this distinction. Humans are higher than dogs and smarter than monkeys. This is why we don't lick our crotch, eat our own feces and hump everything that moves (at least, God told us we're not supposed to). It looks like this in order of worth: 1. God; 2. Humans (that includes men women and children, no one that can sign up for their own blog is left out here); 3. all other created beings--plants, animals, but also not limited to those we see here on earth, but also the angels and the fallen angels (demons). [Theologically, I'm still working that last one over though, cf. the implications of above and Hebrews 1.]

So far I don't think there are any issues. Most complementarians and egalitarians agree at this point. Where we go from here is the rub. So let me answer your question: How can worth be found equal and the men have authority over women through the role distinction? (I hope that's a valid statement of that objection. If not, please let me know-- I do want to be fair to the egalitarian position.)

Wills and the Trinity. My illustation is the Trinity. I'll give it in short, cause I'm running long, and because I want to deal with the further objections to this as the illustration. Both Jesus and the Father are equal in worth, but throughout John's Gospel, Jesus says, "I have come... not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me" (4:34; 5:30; 6:38, 39; to name a few). So while Jesus is not less valuable than his Father, he submits to his will. The argument(s)?

[Note: I'm using feedback that I've received through personal email and this person said it'd be fine if I quoted her. So credit is given where credit is due.]

Kathryn Tanner says this about comparing human relations to the relations of the Trinity: "One should avoid modeling human relations directly on trinitarian ones because trinitarian ones, say, the co-inherence of trinitarian Persons, simply are not appropriate as they stand for human relations." (Jesus, Humanity, & The Trinity 82)

While not all aspects of God and His triune-ness can be brought to human relationships, this illustration is pulled not from thin air, but from Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul writes, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." The correlation that Paul uses for male/female relationships is the Trinity, "the head of Christ is God." So the relationship that husband and wife have is modeled in the relationship of the Father and the Son.

Still flawed it seems. Christina Tingloff, good friend who has entered into the conversation with me writes this, "You can say that Jesus did the will of the Father, but ultimately it was his own will, because ultimately it was the will of the Triune God. That kind of co-inherence, or interpenetration, that makes the work of one person in the Trinity the work of all the others, is not translatable for humans because our wills will always be different, even if we want to do the same thing. Our wills are still our own."

While I respect the interpenetration of the Trinity, there is still a distinction in the persons of the Trinity. This is evident in Matthew (cf. Luke 22:42). Jesus goes to Gethsemane to pray and says, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (Mt. 26:39) And again he prays, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done" (26:42). It reads that there are two different wills running their courses here. Jesus is praying, "Isn't there another way? Do I really have to suffer this? Is it necessary? But not my desires, but yours Father." Further that he says it twice emphasizes moreover that it was a submission of Jesus' will to the Father's. But I know as a good Calvinist that "all" doesn't always mean "all," so this could be one of those instances too.

Flag of caution for the domestically strong handed boys reading this: This does not give you license to domestic violence. It should not be read as "obedience even in the face of suffering." And ladies, this obedience is to be done "in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11). That means, if the dude is beating you, or telling you to do something that is unholy like watch porno with him, you don't have to. That ain't "in the Lord."

If you're still with me, I want to emphasize my disgust for the abuse of women by men a few cans short of a six-pack. I had the pleasure of working at a center in Costa Rica for the rehabilitation of teenage girls called Renacer (Rebirth, or to be reborn). They came from homes where they were prostituted out by their parents to selling drugs and living on the street and everything in between. Some of their stories can be read in the archives on this blog. I wish they had never gone to Renacer, but I was glad to be a model of what a godly man looks like in their lives.

Now just sit back on the couch, let the food settle and find someone to rub that belly. To quote The Thomas Crown Affair, "It's Friday... Come Monday there'll be hell to pay."

Thursday, November 2, 2006

Leave Your Balls At The Door, Please.

It's feminist's week here at North Park, which means that angry middle-aged women stand up and tout the evils of white middle class men, resorting to name calling before Biblical excellence. They do serve a nice spread though.

The "Women's Luncheon" today was to promote Christian (jhem) Feminism, but as any single male will tell you, it doesn't matter what the occassion is, if there's food, they're there. It started with fruit salad and wraps- a good femeal, complete with the vegetarian selection. There was beef though, which I ate with my bare hands, letting the juices run down my chin, or at least I would have. Ending with cookies big enough to send any diabetic reaching for the needle.

Mainly it was a discuss... no, dialo... no, monologue, there we go, a monologue about what the Covenant (ECC) is doing to combat "sexist bigotry" (as was stated the day before). They have a commission publishing material appealing to the emotions, with poor, which is generous, exegesis. It seems that they are seeking to move this issue, which has typically been held in the proverbial "open hand" of the Covenant to the closed fist. Those that are in charge of interviewing and ordaining for the ECC are making this an essential. We talked about ECC polity a week ago and this can't happen.

I asked-- because I'm really struggling with this, amongst other, issues if I should go into the ECC-- what was the future of complementarian pastors/churches in the Covenant? They will increasingly be marginalized and separated from the rest of the ECC. Is that a denomination that I want to go into? Is it an issue that I'm willing to separate over?

Fortunately, that decision may already be made for me.