I feel like I should have posted more this week. I know I wanted to write another Immodesty Rail post, and I wanted to tell you about the author readings and book signings I’ve been to this last month (Lorin Stein, Mary Oliver, Billy Collins). But it’s been an exhausting week, and some people took offense at my post on loneliness, and my sister is moving, and I’ve been remembering that I’m an introvert and the emotional fullness of this week has taken its toll. I’ll get y’all caught up soon. But when I’m ready.
For the time being, I’ve found some noteworthy pieces worth your reading attention.
Makoto Fujimura, one of my favorite Christian thinkers and a gifted artist, lost a lot of his more recent work in the rising waters of Hurricane Sandy. There’s no insurance money or FEMA help for the damage done to the gallery and his art, and they’re taking donations to try to repair the damage.
Justin Welby is the new Archbishop of Canterbury. I admit I was hoping John Sentamu would get this post, but we will see how Welby does.
Rachel Held Evans writes her best post yet, and what I think should have been the preface to her latest and highly controversial book. This is a fantastic read.
A Christianity Today blog post on reading modern-day assumptions into the Bible and Mr. Mom.
My dear friend RoseAnna reflects on what she’s learning in dating after her divorce about grace and people.
The Greek island Ikaria is, according to the New York Times, the island where people forget to die.
Preston writes a beautifully poetic post on what the phrase “pro-life” evokes in his mind.
I just discovered this blogger this week, and I was surprised and impressed at his love poems–they’re quite good.
This may very well be the best thing I’ve read all week: The Trinity in Gender Debates. It’s the perfect follow-up to this post I read earlier, where Libby Anne observes that Debi Pearl’s concept of wifely subordination is based on her assumptions about the Trinity (which I found to be hugely problematic and borderline heretical). I recommend reading the Love, Joy, Feminism post before reading the first essay, to understand what this looks like in practice before digging into the theological nuances of such statements.
Regarding your RHE link — I read Keller’s original post and found it very compelling. I found Ms. Evan’s response lacking in what I believed to be the core of the critique — her rather eisegetical approach to reading the Bible. What gives her experiment power is nearly all her activities seem silly or ridiculous to us 21st century Westerners. My problem is this should not be the litmus test of whether or not to accept or reject something prescribed in the Bible.
From Keller’s critique:
“You say your ultimate goal is not to determine what the biblical authors say, but to see in the Bible “what I am looking for.” You go on immediately to say, “Are we reading with the prejudice of love or . . . of judgment and power, self-interest and greed?” (296) So “love” is the reason you will reject some parts of the Bible and embrace others? But where do you get your definition of love if not from the Bible itself? And if you say, “Parts of the Bible express love, and other parts express power interests,” you’ve clearly gotten your standard and definition of love from outside the Bible—specifically, from contemporary sensibilities—and these are your ultimate authority and norm.
Rachel, I can and do agree with much of what you say in your book regarding the ways in which either poor biblical interpretation or patriarchal customs have sinfully oppressed women. I would join you in exposing churches, books, teachers, and leaders who have imposed a human agenda on the Bible. However, you have become what you claim to despise; you have imposed your own agenda on Scripture in order to advance your own goals. In doing so, you have further muddied the waters of biblical interpretation instead of bringing any clarity to the task.”
I was on a rabbit trail from one of your links and came across this — this has hannah written all over it.
http://danileekelley.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/the-proper-response/