The problem with turning faith into a human achievement.

To even make faith a sort of disposition that is required (a feeling, a cognitive awareness, a self-understanding, a longing, a desire) is problematic in that, however minute and simple, however easy, the very fact that it is found in you makes it questionable. "Faith is uncertain," Luther once said, and his diatribes against the same have gone scarcely noticed by theologians today. The matter becomes wholly relative; a sort of gaseous pathogen that flits from one portion of the human construct to another, always escaping the gaze or, if caught, evaporating.

Barth once called faith a pure negation, a pure lack, a vacuum. He was right, and right also to immediately speak against turning this into a human thing. Faith is not a human thing. It is in us, but we cannot locate it or describe it. It is in us, but there is no part of it to which we are attached. We cannot say that we have it, yet a paradox forms in the epiphenomenon of assurance and joy. How can these things come if one does not know faith? Justifying faith! Yet as soon as we return to our self-reflection, the despair returns. Human achievements work despair alone.

What theological era are we in currently?

If I can compare it to anything, it would be that of the age of Medieval Scholasticism. Instead of reading and expositing the scriptures, theologians content themselves with the writings of Karl Barth or the modern church fathers (Bonhoeffer, Troeltsch, Yoder, Schleiermacher, Tillich etc...). Does anyone not see in this a stunning analogue to the days where the prime task of a theologian was to comment on Peter Lombard's Sentences?

Theological Lightbulb!

This correlation, if true, has no doubt been held and explained far more profoundly and accurately than I (a querelous little brat) could ever dream of doing. Nevertheless, I am excited at having made this particular revelation personal:

The correlaton is between Arianism and the dignity of nature. Clearly, if Jesus was (is) not God but a lesser, created being... how far of a stretch is it to proceed from this presupposition to the assumption of a natural dignity bestowed on the creature, unhampered (though perhaps weakened or neutralized for a time by the fall)? Especially in light of Jesus' incarnation (seen from the Arian standpoint) may we not begin to assume that all of the great and magnificent things done by this Christ are examples of the universal human possibility; albeit in the clearest and most honorable light as compared with all other men? And is it not the case, then, that the focus of Christ's redemptive activity is not in the mere forgiveness of sins or justification of the wicked sinner by grace, but in his exemplary instruction (no doubt still through his vicarious suffering) to humanity through word and deed, in his pedagogical revealing of the potency of humans to do good of themselves, or perhaps in tandem with the power of God? Perhaps, at the end of the dogmatic reflection, Jesus saves men by teaching them to save themselves?

Historical thesis: It is necessary that the heresy of Arianism precede and pave in definite and decisive forms the way for the later heresy of Pelagianism.

My correlative discovery should not be immediately applied sweepingly to all Arians. In historical reflection I wish as much as possible to treat individuals (even Arian individuals) as individuals, rather than guilty on all points by association with certain schools of thought. But if I apply my thesis to the immediate materials of knowledge available to me, I find some intriguing results:

1. The cult of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which has consistently indoctrinated an Arian christology, also lacks any satisfactory knowledge of justification by pure grace apart from works.

2. The same holds for Mormonism.

3. John Howard Yoder's Politics of Jesus, which very subtly places the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation in the background in light of the importance of Jesus' ethical significance, is also smattered from cover to cover with clear statements of justification by the good works of disciples of Jesus (note particularly his chapter titled Justification by grace through faith, where he literally morphs the word "faith" into "faithfulness" and removes any forensic significance of justification in favor of a concrete social event).

4. N.T. Wright's questionable christology, wherein the human Jesus of history is relatively ignorant of his own Godhead and can only perceive a vocation laid on him which abstractly and nebulously presupposes divinity (cf. the christological chapters of his Simply Christian), would here be fittingly related to his idea that we are justified both by Jesus' faithfulness to God AND the concrete fulfilling of the law in the lives of the believers.

More to come, no doubt! I have certainly uncovered similar trends in Bishop John A.T. Robinson, but right now I am most curious about the work of James Dunn. He has already stated his position as monotheistic (by which he means that there is only God the Father; which is certainly a false monotheism inasmuch as it denies scriptural revelation), but he has also called the doctrine of sola fide a genuine "litmus test" against all bad theology. Given the fact that he hasn't read squat from the Reformation, my suspicion is that his sola fide may turn out to be perfectly commensurate with works-righteousness (hints in this direction being his complete disinterest in a vertical view of Paul's written subject matter, in favor of its social implications).

Are current vampire-hunting guilds influenced by post-modernism?

Such is the title of a satirical piece I wrote for my high school newspaper in grade twelve. Despite some lack of philosophical comprehension and divers grammatical errors, I still think it was brilliantly done. I exercise the right to laugh at it because it was funny. Here is an excerpt:

The vampiric community values strategic accomplishments of the modernist age, worst of all the idea of a universal struggle for human destruction. More commencingly (sic) dangerous is the mindset that post-modern conversation is met prominently through drinking blood. To gain a clarified stance on the problem, we eagerly attended a story-sharing between a vampire and his victim. The vampire appeared quite intent on sharing his feelings; he gnashed his teeth many times and made a number of daunting linguistic marks on the victim's neck. The victim, however, appeared less successful in communicating his story. In an obscure fashion he let out a few moans and one distinctive "arrrrrrgh!!" We are humbly reminded of Derrida's proposition that "there is nothing outside the text."

A Good Quote.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." -Jn 1:1

In the face of the recent and very pseudo-intellectual upsurge of arianism in the Protestant church, we must cleave to this inspired truth of scripture and say a simple "No, thanks." As soon as a Protestant abandons the truth of scripture; she abandons the right to refer to herself as Protestant. Goodness, to think that the Catholics are more on track these days.....

Racial/ethnic distinctions are not un-biblical.

"Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons..." -Paul (quoting Epimenides).

I wonder how Paul would get on with hypocritical North America today, with its proud ability to stifle such things as intolerance, hate-speech and that nebulous thing called "Racism" (poo-poo! They continue to congratulate their consciences in the midst of endless infanticide, blasphemy, warmongering and greed..not to mention sexual immorality!). He probably wouldn't get on well. Neither would any other biblical writer, really. The scriptures are rife with all sorts of juicy remarks against Jews, Egyptians, Gentiles, Philistines, Arabs, women, homosexuals etc... it is almost too much for our pious consciences to handle!

Just imagine what would happen if I were to change the word 'Cretan' up above to 'African' or 'The French' (obviously 'america' would fly...it is currently trendy to hate this nation and its inhabitants).

One might point out that it would be unfair to do so, as neither Africans or French people display the characteristics described in the pauline saying. Ok, but what if they did? Logically, following the analysis proffered by sacred scripture, it would be exemplary in some cases to make an "ethnic slur." Perhaps more cases than we deem comfortable.

To conclude this rant, I should like to make an ethnic slur myself:

Canadians are lazy, sexually immoral, godless and greedy.

Ten Reasons why Rebecca Black is better than most musicians.

1. She doesn't dress like a slut. 2. She doesn't swear. 3. She doesn't blaspheme. 4. She hasn't gotten in trouble with the law. 5. She can actually sing live. 6. She has published one song and received 110 million views in just over a month. 7. She loves life (compare with Nine Inch Nails or Seether) 8. She donated the proceeds of her song to a country in need. 9. She hasn't retaliated against the negative comments. 10. She has natural beauty. So take that you wicked Black-haters.

101 things to do in 1001 days.

This is a blog idea, by which the reader may indulge in his/her general narcissism and list a number of things he/she would like to accomplish in an enclosed slot of time. My sister did one and it was brilliant (she has a knack for turning the most selfish projects into selfless emanations of charity and life). Since no one reads my blog anyhow, and since talking to myself is almost as satisfying, I have compiled a list for my own viewing pleasure below: 1. Befriend Zac Efron. 2. Have Pope Benedict out to my cottage for a week (this will surely happen only in accordance with God's power, but I am hopeful). 3. Skinny-Dip in three different lakes this summer (there is a sensual beauty to swimming in the nude). 4. Finish Sartre's Being and Nothingness (after reading the first thirty pages over at least ten times, I need to make an advancement) 5. Finish 1.2 of Barth's church dogmatics and complete 2.1. 6. Take a course in Latin. 7. Kiss a girl. 8. Get a six-pack (en route) 9. Purchase a sailboat. 10. Complete the entire Cheam Range (a total of ten peaks, from the valley floor). 11. Kayak Trip. 12. Picnic in the Pembina valley. 13. Complete Chopin's Concerto in E Minor (1/3) 14. Publish two songs for Youtube. 15. Develop a closer friendship with my older sister. 16. Get to know Dave more. 17. Become more accomplished in Spanish. 18. Diet Better. 19. Bring two new people to church. 20. Read a new book by Viktor Frankl (one of the most beautiful men ever to have lived; this man is my very heart). 21. Find the longest biography on Martin Luther and read it. 22. Bake a seven-layer torte. 23. Learn how to take better care of my vehicle. 24. Learn how to live in spite of the ubiquitous meaninglessness of life. 25. Improve my grammar. 26. Have memorized 50 psalms (20/50) 27. Master the 1's section at Earls. 28. Get a sense of where I need to be, work-wise, in this life. 29. Make peace with old age and loss of youth. 30. Successfully reconcile with everyone that I am at odds with. 31. Actually love an enemy. 32. Complete my B.A. 33. Begin a Master's Degree. 34. Learn how to record music in a studeo. 35. Watch the Godfather Trilogy. 36. Develop a correspondence with Henri Blocher. 37. Give advice to Stephen Harper. 38. Get happier. 39. Forgive more. 40. Come to terms with my Mennonite heritage. 41. A duet with Breanne Duren. 42. Take dance lessons. 43. Love the world less. 44. Become less of a coward in speaking about Jesus. 45. Greater assurance of salvation. 46. A week-long sailing trip off of British Columbia. 47. Spend more time outdoors. 48. Plant more and variegated Daffodils. 49. Get to know my cat Jensen better. 50. Become closer friends with Jadon Peters. I'm bored now.

Did the global flood happen?

Undoubtedly it did. Why? Because the sacred scriptures tell us that it happened. I see no reason why we unhesitatingly submit to the theological content of Gen. 1-2 but shove our tails in between our legs at chapters 6-9. The global flood provides a linking point between creation and eschatology (2 Pet. 3:5-7). It is the symbol of the baptismal waters, by which Christians enter new life through the chaos of God's judgment (1 Pet. 3:20-21; "Save me, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck!" "You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas..."). Not to mention the fact that our Lord believed and taught it (Mt. 37-39). The "days of Noah" form the very presupposition of the time and season of the Son of Man's judgment! It means precious little that geologists and other scientists have found no evidence of a global flood (and no, those books written by the fundamentalist young earthers do not furnish a counter-claim for the scientific community). Nor does this mean (in keeping with the neo-gnostics) that the flood was a mythological or theological event. Like creation, and like the coming eschatological judgment, the flood is purely an event of this earth, it happened in historical time, to real historical people. When? The scriptures do not reveal a date to us. My guess is that the event occurred some time in the early history of mankind, possibly 150,000 years ago. And it will do no good for "neutral science" to try to adjudicate the problem, as if they could for even the smallest of God's judgments and activities in history! None of these are ever available beyond the testimony of the Word and the faith which comes through the hearing of the Word. "Your judgments are on high, out of his sight!" (Ps. 10:5b, NASB). Since the LORD created the heavens and the earth, it is hardly difficult for him to keep events of cosmic significance from our pea-brain perceptions.

An Open Letter to the Reverand and Honored Scholar Jim West.

Dear Sir, How often you lament the wicked ignorance and sloth of men and women today who know their N.T. Wright, but Zwingli have never heard of, much less considered. But how can the Reformation be properly understood by these indigents if they can always rest safely under the banner (excuse) of not knowing German? To be sure, their wickedness knows no bounds in the matter of Luther, Calvin...even Menno Simons! These have all been carefully translated into the modern English language for the use or disuse of the public. How is it that they still have this last bulwark of historical ignorance in Zwingli? Dear sir, consider carefully how you proceed. You are adept in the german language, and have proved your prowess in biblical and theological knowledge through publications too numerous to count. And, as if this were not enough, you stand under the ripe age of 50, an age where some monumental thinkers only began their careers! Will you not consider overseeing and administrating a project to translate the whole of Zwingli's corpus into the English language? Think you this task too great? Think rather of the legacy you shall leave behind! Finally the ill-informed hordes of thieving Wrightians will be robbed of their last excuse for historical knowledge. The whole of the Reformation will loom before them on their own turf, in their own vernacular, and though they turn not a page of this illustruious bastion of theological goodness, ground will certainly have been taken for the sake of posterity. Consider well sir...consider well.... Yours truly, Marc Regier

I am an idiot.

I have had the good fortune of discovering that in divers ways this last month. Endless stupidity, ignorance, delusional, and futile thinking. Theological ineptitude, hardness of heart, coldness, empty words, delighting in my own opinions etc.. etc...

God grant that I may not write a book until I am fluent in ten languages, wise, slow to speak, quick to listen, sparing in my words, loving, gentle, irenic, and thoroughly versed in nearly everything that has been written before me on the putative subject. Even then, perhaps, God grant that I might not write at all. As if the world needs another blabbering idiot.

Was the Japan earthquake caused by God?

Yes. It makes no sense to say, "God allowed it to happen."

Amos says, "If Disaster falls on a city, has not God been at work?"

Isaiah reports God saying, "I work weal and I work woe."

The issue isn't whether God caused it, but why. And the answer is not given to us; at least as far as I am aware. This may very well be another Jobean dilemma.

If you become a Christian, can you expect wealth and health?

Not a chance.

Paul says as much to the new Gentile believers in the book of Acts, "Through many hardships we must enter the kingdom of God."

Jesus says, "Anyone who does not take up their cross daily cannot be my disciple."

Sometimes I feel pretty fortunate that my only hardships pertain to sickness. Can't really imagine what life would be like in the shoes of some of the 1st century Christians. Time and chance happen to them all.

Although I suppose, in a sense, you can expect health and wealth if you convert. Just be patient...when you die, my goodness, you'll have Thomas Aquinas' beatific vision, Augustine's intellectual/spiritual worship of the Trinity, Luther's "show us the Father!" and N.T. Wright's "New Creation" all packed into one. The claims latent in the revelation of eternal life are staggering. But first, the misery!

They all get Barth wrong.

"And yet I should be altogether misunderstood if my readers refused to credit me with the honesty of, at any rate, intending to ex-plain the text [of Romans]." -Karl Barth (Romerbrief, ix)

This fact is overlooked by so many who purport to know something of Barth. I won't name names.

In actuality, the Romerbrief gets us closer to the heart of Paul than most commentaries. The reason being is that Barth felt himself loyal to the wording of Paul. He wanted to speak with Paul. Many of Barth's critics assume that this cannot be the case for exegesis. Ironically, a quick survey of their own works can only lead one to the conclusion that they wish to speak at Paul.

Leviticus and Sex.

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Lev. 20:13)

That homosexual activity is both abnormal, detestable and wrong is well attested in the ancient world.

The point of the levitical command is stated at the end of ch.20: "You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own."

Today the church accomodates itself to the sexual practises of the nations. In so doing it has made a statement: we are not set apart by God, and we do not belong to Him.

Exodus and Sex.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife...." (20:17)

Sexually fantasizing about your neighbor's wife, or even simply envying your neighbor because his wife is the essence of perfection, is a sin of unbelief. It stems from the futile thought that God as Creator, as your God is incapable of producing a woman whose qualities exceed that of your neighbor's wife. It is a delusion, and it forms in the mind based on a conscious and initial choice to reject God as God.

Genesis and Sex.

"Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her." -Jacob (Gen. 29:21)

As fitting a reason as ever for wanting to get married. Tobit gets it all wrong when it condemns sexual desire. We should listen to Jacob rather than some deuterocanonical pseudepigrapha.

Does God get intimate with those He loves?

"Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine." (Ezek. 16:8)

Things to look forward to this Summer.

I'm a bit of a Zinzendorfian. I think God reveals his glory and his judgments in the beauty of the seasons, and the transcendence of the mountains. God always has something particularly special to give us, His children, each season. For winter it is usually depression and melancholy, but the arrival of summer....well now:

"See! The winter is past; the rains are over and gone. Flowers appear on the earth; the season of singing has come." (Song of Solomon; 2:11-12)

Ohhhhh yeahhhh.

1. Romance.
2. Evening fires.
3. Swimming in lakes.
4. Laughter.
5. Music and singing.
6. Kissing.
7. Adventure.
8. Swimshorts and bakinis.
9 Road Trips.
10. Cottage excursions.

All of this and more. Oh what happiness! Thank you Jesus!

Does Jesus reveal a non-violent God?

I'll let the parables answer that question for me:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them- bring them here and kill them in front of me" (Lk. 19:27; the Parable of theTen Minas. This parable is actually refering to Jesus, not God the Father.)



"What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." (Lk. 20:15b-16a; The parable of the Tenants.)



"In anger his master turned him over to the jailors to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." (Mt. 18:34; The parable of the unmerciful servant.)



And, lest anyone doubt that Jesus is actually making a theological point in the above verse: "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." (18:35)



"The son of Man will send out his angels, and they will....throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Mt. 13:42; The parable of the Weeds explained. Cf. also 13:47-50)



And so on and so forth. There is lots more where this came from, so don't be shy to ask me if you want extra scriptural evidence.

Wrightian works-righteousness

"The result is that when somebody then lives the kind of life which in Christ is honoring to God, it isn't that they are earning their final justification by their own efforts; it is already given; it's a datum; it's part of who they are in Christ from the moment they believe and are baptized. Rather it is the Spirit working in them, through them, so that they are freely choosing to do what the Spirit wants them to do." N.T. Wright (http://www.ivpress.com/title/ata/wright_qa.pdf)

The problem with your soteriology, Mr. Wright, is that it smacks of catholicism. It has nothing to do with Reformation theology, despite your protest to the contrary. John Calvin would rather cut his lips off with dull scissors than claim that God gives us "final justification" on the basis of deeds performed through an infused righteousness. For the Reformation project (and for anyone who feels compelled to take the New Testament seriously), a man is only ever justified by faith. Deeds can have as little merit for justification at the end than at the beginning. Jesus makes this perfectly clear when he states, "No one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law..." (Rom. 3:20). Note the future tense. Wrightians have made a huge deal of the future tense in 2:13 to argue for a final justification on the basis of a life well lived. Why have they neglected to apply the same logic here?

Analyzing a popular, but misleading maxim.

"If you say you are a Christian, then act like one."

The assumption behind this aphorism is that a particular (written or unwritten) moral code defines, confines, or constrains the ontology of a Christian. The Christian's actions must line up with this set of pearl-strung laws or he/she does not qualify to be one. But Christianity is not moral code. It is a response to a moral code. Christianity revolves around the basic fact that Jesus Christ, not our own personal actions or our ability to live up to and emulate a pre-selected list of rules, is our righteousness. Those who "act like Christians" are, nine times out of ten, seeking to follow a law of righteousness that they have built for themselves. But this is not, in any sense, a submission to God's righteousness. Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that, "twisted as you are" you ought to come to the Father and expect good things from Him (in Luke Jesus modifies this teaching to disclose the receiving of the Holy Spirit). In other words: "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Pastors who engage in moralism in their sermons never take God's Holy Law seriously. They assume that if a person doesn't get drunk, sleep around, cheat their neighbor, or lie, he has sufficiently demonstrated enough good behavior to honestly call himself a Christian. Or positively, a person who writes encouraging emails to said pastor, attends church faithfully, participates in local ministries, and tithes generously is "acting" like a Christian. God's Holy Law will allow for none of this. According to the sacred writ in Romans, both the pious Jew and religious Gentile are forced to clap their mouths shut as God righteously damns them for their ungodliness and wickedness. They are unclean. Their good deeds and Christian actions are worthless in God's sight. They have aroused His wrath which burns to the grave below and cannot be quenched. They have sighted God's free gift of salvation and erected a triple-barrior of requirements in front of it. James says," Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." To this day, I have not met a man or woman who takes this verse seriously. Since it is most certainly true, the one embodiment of truth and knowledge that a Christian has to guage the autheniticity of his "Christianess" stands clearly and immutably against him. His flimsy structure of good deeds and partial fulfillments fall before one word. He has kept certain commands but has neglected others (love your neighbor as yourself? love your enemies? love God with your whole heart? Be perfect? Be holy as God is holy? Avoid so much as a hint of sexual immorality, greed, and impurity?) and thus he has kept no commands. He has broken all of them.

"If you say you are a Christian, then act like one" is a lawless statement. It is a call to take up that filthy pile of fishy-smelling menstrual rags and build up a ramp to Heaven. You may be certain that God will come down and scatter your pride.

Why I haven't been posting lately.

I'm still a lazy bum. This can only mean that you as a reader have neglected to pray for me. There is no progress in sanctification unless brothers and sisters intercede for one another.

A good reason why women should not be "in" theology.

http://witheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/what-would-we-do-after-abortion-became-illegal/

Abominable. Any person who can so snidely and wickedly weigh in against the "problems" of making abortion illegal does not deserve to bear the title of "theologian". These women are a disgrace to the cause of theology, and they further my already conclusive thesis that women have no business teaching the subject.

Jim West was correct to compare the abortion movement to the "Holocaust". Much worse yet than holocaust, abortion signifies sinning against little ones, an evil which stands so far above any act of genocide in its inherent repugnance, that the scriptures reserve no mercy for those nations which are guilty of it. Not even Judah, after all of its heartfelt repentance, escaped God's fierce and agonous wrath for the crimes of Manasseh in sacrificing children in the fire.

I can already predict that the only reaction this blog will get out of people is against its "chauvinist" bent. Oh what a damnable society we live in! We get all out of sorts when grown women aren't given their due in one sector of the academic realm, but can hardly bat an eye at the millions and millions and millions of babies that have been liquified by saline products under the "troubled" consent of their depraved and irresponsible mothers. What the hell is wrong with you? I can hardly contain my rage at your dull and wretched liberalism.

Women or men or anyone who support abortion, who even consider the matter a topic for debate....I hold them in as much esteem as the most foul and disgusting Nazi. Our country is no better than the third reich.

My mind can wander....

So I was listening to a feminist babble the other day, and suddenly my troubled mind became soothed by the formation of a beautiful series of images. To be sure, we do not live in a perfect world, but I can always dream....

Schopenhauer: Timely remarks on women.

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted- in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word.

Thoughts to ponder! If a writer said these things today he would be lynched, thrown out of the university and forbidden to speak in public. This is because our feckless and brutish society can only handle free thinking as long as freedom is in slavery to egalitarianism. Stupid feminists.

A verse to have in view whenever a feminist opens her mouth.

"Do not spend your strength on women, your vigor on those who ruin kings." (Pr.31:3)

Wise words from King Lemuel's mother. And if kings profit well from this wisdom, I imagine scholars of today would do well to heed the lesson.

Quote of the century.

"As I heard N.T. Wright's preface to the Epistle to the Romans being read, my heart felt strangely pissed...." -Marc Regier

Anabaptist Hermeneutical Hypocrisy.

Ever notice how most anabaptists today have jumped into bed with the modern feminist agenda? Menno Simons would be horrified. I as his dutiful student am too.

You will often note how an anabaptist will solemnly refer to the case of Deborah in the Old Testament as a sacred precedent for women holding positions of leadership in the Body of Christ, but will completely ignore what Deborah proceeded to do with her authority. They ignore this other textual material because Deborah leads Israel into war, and calls down curses on the tribes that refuse to participate in the bloodshed.

The fact that the Old Testament records a woman holding leadership is sacred, the fact that said woman led people into divine warfare is profane. This choosiness not only serves the Anabaptists purpose to support the modern egalitarian construct by appeal to the authority of the Bible, but simultaneously enables the anabaptist to shut off biblical authority when said authority conflicts with her secular ideology of pacifism. In short, the Bible for an anabaptist is like a water faucet that can be turned on and off at her own whim. For such hermeneutical hypocrisy she proves that her whole system is entirely flawed and corrupt from the ground up.

1 Timothy 2:13: Further exegetical remarks.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man; she must be silent." (1 Tim.2:13)

It is my personal opinion that this decree of God should not merely be limited to the sphere of the bishopric. It involves any formal office that holds the teaching of the Word in the forefront. The complementarians are just as guilty of eisegesis here as the heretical feminists.

Allowing the text to speak for itself, I suggest that it forbids women any teaching ministry over other men. As such they cannot become theologians, they cannot become professors in biblical studies, they cannot publish articles in biblical or theological journals, and they cannot write books. All such things presuppose that a woman is free to break silence in the things of God and begin to teach man....which is wrong.

Why I have not posted in awhile.

Because I am lazy.

Fitting words from Joseph Fitzmyer.

"I do not think that the NPP has moved Pauline studies forward in any sense. It is simply an unconvincing aspect of Pauline interpretation that has attracted some students."

Via: www.sethodom.blogspot.com/2010/05/interview-with-rev-joseph-fitzmyer.html

Indeed!

Why I am still a Mennonite.

I am still a Mennonite because Theodore Dyck still prays for me.

Context.

Context blows sometimes. People think it is the cat's meow of biblical studies. It isn't. Sometimes it is crucial to hear a biblical verse entirely on its own, entirely apart from everything that was said before and afterwords. To ignore the historical and the grammatical, the mystical and the narrative...and by gosh to ignore what the author was intending, to simply listen to the verse, acknowledging that it is the ineffable Word of God.