Sentences with phrase «of biblical culture»

As a woman, I often struggle with the misogynistic elements of biblical culture.

Not exact matches

In some sense, it smelled of a culture reforming theology without the explicit biblical anchor.

If Catholics in the United States are going to be healers of our wounded culture, we're going to have to learn to see the world through lenses ground by biblical faith.

To the cultured despisers of religion and Biblical morality, we say we love you, but we will oppose you — and with our COGIC friends we will strive not so much to defeat you in a cultural and political struggle as to open your hearts and minds to the life - preserving and love - affirming truths of the Gospel that reason knows and faith confirms.

Surely you don't think my comment concerning the status of women in the biblical cultures has anything to do with MY decision making do you?

The purpose of my project was to unpack and explore the phrase «biblical womanhood» — mostly because, as a woman, the Bible's instructions and stories regarding womanhood have always intrigued me, but also because the phrase «biblical womanhood» is often invoked in the conservative evangelical culture to explain why women should be discouraged from working outside the home and forbidden from assuming leadership positions in the church.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

«The theological culture of our meeting was deeply biblical, resting comfortably within an attachment to Jesus, his death and resurrection,» he wrote.

I suspected I'd get a little pushback from fellow Christians who hold a complementarian perspective on gender, (a position that requires women to submit to male leadership in the home and church, and often appeals to «biblical womanhood» for support), but I had hoped — perhaps naively — that the book would generate a vigorous, healthy debate about things like the Greco Roman household codes found in the epistles of Peter and Paul, about the meaning of the Hebrew word ezer or the Greek word for deacon, about the Paul's line of argumentation in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, about our hermeneutical presuppositions and how they are influenced by our own culture, and about what we really mean when we talk about «biblical womanhood» — all issues I address quite seriously in the book, but which have yet to be engaged by complementarian critics.

We recognize that some societies and cultures have unjustly limited women's full participation, but biblical, church, and secular history record countless women of vision and tenacious faith who, through prayer and perseverance, overcame limitations of every variety to influence the shaping of human history.

Theological hermeneutics should have a «spiral structure» in which there is ongoing circulation between culture, tradition, and biblical text, each enriching the understanding of the other.

He also denies both that the biblical grasp of universal moral principles is irrelevant to Eastern cultures, and that the West has a monopoly on those principles.

The biblical understanding of life never had a chance to shape its own culture and ethic, and thus to create a context for sexuality within a Christian style of life.

But I am allowing for an honest dialog within myself between my faith and my deep appreciation of science and the evolution of human culture since Biblical times.

Probably more of the old biblical culture needs to be included in a new pattern for America than the counterculture would allow.

Another staggering mishandling of Scripture occurs when Piper claims that the household codes of the New Testament, wherein the biblical writers urge wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives, are unique to the Bible and that «there's nothing like it in any culture in the world.»

(ENTIRE BOOK) An examination of the two primary traditions — denominational biblical tradition and enlightenment utilitarianism — that worked together to contribute to the American Revolution and to create the civil religion which marks American culture to this day.

It is common to be cynical about dumbed - down popular culture, American education comes in for its share of critiques, and biblical and theological illiteracy is a real problem.

My question was whether the language of «metaphysics» and «ontology» can be «heard» when mounting that defense in today's confused culture; my suggestion was that the language of biblical realism might have a better chance of providing an effective response to the regnant Gnosticism.

Among his writings are the following: Christian Apologetics in a World Community (InterVarsity Press 1983); Let the Earth Rejoice: A Biblical Theology of Holistic Mission (Crossway 1983); Christian Art in Asia, (Rodop Amsterdam 1979, distributed by Humanities Press); Themes in Old Testament Theology, (InterVarsity Press 1979); Daniel in the Television Den: A Christian Approach to American Culture (Western Baptist Press 1975; and Rouault: A Vision of Suffering and Salvation (Eerdmans 1971).

Ethicists must look not only at the Israelite context but also at the moral values of the surrounding culture or cultures on any given moral point, for often the biblical position is taken in direct response to some contrary moral behavior.

In any case, the biblical contribution to spirituality is not to belittle this world in order to indulge in an otherworldly exaltation but rather to keep our feet in the soil of this good earth and our hands in the soiled workings of human culture and history in order to re-create them.

The particular resources of contemporary liberal theology that have especial relevance for a Christian approach to our culture's current difficulties are these: (1) the contemporary historical consciousness, (2) the conclusions of biblical scholars regarding Jesus and the Kingdom of God, and (3) the current «process» understanding of God, Which allows a positive relation (but not a surrender!)

And, I would go on to argue, if biblical authors wrote in a culture with an attitude different to historical reporting from ours, then they wrote as the products of such a culture.

The christmas myth as told by western culture, is a jumble of faith, popular culture, earlier festivals, and it is held at a time of year that is clearly not in line with biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus.

But he focuses on that particular, identifiable strain of evangelical Christianity that is persistently revivalistic, emphasizes dispensationalist premillennialism and biblical inerrancy, militantly opposes theological modernism and cultural secularity and feels a strong sense of «trusteeship» for American culture.

As long as Christianity had to play — or allowed itself to play — the role of Western culture - religion, the nomenclature «Christian» was obliged to stand for all sorts of dispositions extraneous or tangential in relation to biblical faith.

While many Christians in the past have acted directly contrary to those very clear biblical teachings (i.e., the Crusades, etc.), others have actually appealed to those very teachings in fighting the tide of a culture that would demean humanity (i.e., MLK, William Wilberforce, the Confessing Church's stand against the Nazis, etc.).

The biblical word of God, which fives and abides forever, must be set free to relativize all the absolutes, avowed and presuppositional, of our post-Christian, neo-pagan culture and to lead us into truth about ourselves as our Maker has revealed it — truth which, be it said, we only fully know and perceive as truth in the process of actually obeying it.

Unlike Bultmann's demythologizing and dismantling of the biblical worldview and Tillich's culture - correlated philosophy of religion — they and a few others were the «canon» in those days (the sixties)-- in Barth's work I found a theology that spoke to the heart and one also presented in a provocative, passionate, and personal way.

Rather than ground their discussion in biblical reflection and careful observation of play itself, Christians have most often been content to allow Western culture to shape their understanding of the human at play.

And those of us that gave our children hell for not conforming to our «biblical culture», we see them leaving the faith that chained them.

The biblical faith, with roots in revolutionary messianic hope which is itself rooted in the prophetism of ancient Israel / Judah, is even now, and daily, used to sanctify and perpetuate the life, culture, security, and privilege not now of imperialist Rome but of the imperialist United States.

While debate over the understanding of Biblical interpretation lies at the heart of current evangelical discussions concerning women, differences in theological tradition lie at the center of discussions over social ethics, and disagreement over one's approach toward the wider secular culture is surfacing as the focus of controversy regarding homosexuality.

David Hubbard, for example, in his taped remarks on the future of evangelicalism to a colloquium at Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver in 1977 noted the following areas of tension among evangelicals: women's ordination, the charismatic movement, ecumenical relations, social ethics, strategies of evangelism, Biblical criticism, Biblical infallibility, contextual theology in non-Western cultures, and the churchly applications of the behavioral sciences.2 If such a list is more exhaustive than those topics which this book has pursued, it nevertheless makes it clear that the foci of the preceding chapters have at least been representative.

Rather than accommodating Christianity to what is already proximately Christian in our culture, he assumed all along that the insights of biblical faith are more true and profound than any secular alternatives.

Those opposed to change claim that culture has determined the church's interpretation of the Biblical text.

Biblical culture opens a new horizon, proposing that the human being is best understood as the subject of prayer.

The former camp were highly concerned with packing as much theological and biblical knowledge into each song as possible, while the latter adopted the strategy of reaching hip - hop culture by fitting into it, and there's more great Christian - focused hip - hop being made, which will appeal to more fans, than at any point in the genre's history.

Unfortunately, contemporary culture presents us — all too insistently — with issues which require a determined biblical and theological response: the continuation of the abortion regime; the intensifying pressure to acknowledge the legitimacy of same - sex «marriage»; the attacks on the religious liberty of Christians, forcing them to support practices offensive to their faith; and, most recently, «assisted suicide» now masquerading under the name «the right to die with dignity.»

Our Western culture has moved so rapidly in the past half century, our ways of thinking have been so affected by the scientific, technological, and secular advances, that our situation seems divorced almost completely from society as presupposed in biblical and traditional theological thinking.

He is the editor of Christians for Biblical Equality's magazine, Mutuality (@Mutualitymag), and enjoys finding God's fingerprints in history, culture, and language.

Hence, appropriately, it was in the terms of his own synthesis of classical and biblical forms that the new edifice of culture was established and continually reformed — four, five, six, even seven centuries later.

Within the context of special revelation, Niebuhr turned to two distinctive biblical teachings about man, man as creature and image of God, and used these two doctrines to clarify and substantiate his original assumption about man's paradoxical environment of nature and spirit, and to refute the competing anthropologies of modern culture.

If you've read A Year of Biblical Womanhood, you'll know I first learned this from my Jewish friend Ahava who told me that in her culture, it's not the women who memorize Proverbs 31, but the men.

The conditions that required the condemnation of homosexual acts in biblical times do not exist now... at least in the western culture.

According to the biblical model of the person, which has prevailed for many centuries and is still largely normative for Western culture, a person consists of a physical organism, including a brain of unique proportions and capabilities.

Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

The use of biblical language to express a Victorian worldview makes it very difficult for most Protestants to remember that the books of the Bible address questions posed in another time in terms of the worldviews of ancient cultures.

Robert Bellah has shown that American culture from its early beginnings has held two views in tension: on the one hand, the biblical understanding of community based on the notion of charity for all members, a community supported by public and private virtue; and, on the other hand, the utilitarian understanding that community is a neutral state which allows individuals to pursue the maximization of their self - interest.16.