The Feeling: More Named, Awe and Wholeness

When I think about aesthetics and art, specifically Christian art, as we have talked about it, I think about all of the things that I have seen in my life that makes the hair on my arms stand up and butterflies to explode in my chest. Whether it's the grand architecture in London or a simple art piece in an exhibit here on Hardin Simmons campus, a certain feeling makes some art special; there is a sense of "awe" like we have already talked about.

Madeline L'Engle uses part of her book Walking on Water to talk about what makes art Christian art and says that we will feel "more named" when we experience certain art. Still, I feel like her idea of feeling more named is the same as what we have classified as the feeling of awe in the past. There is something about the feeling that comes with certain experiences that feels life-changing. L'Engle talks about how we can't say if something is an art, and we can't preach that it's Christian because that is "presumptuous," but we can know "if it speaks within our own hearts," and this is something that I love. I want to say that no one can ever label art and tell if it is or isn't, but the idea that art and the different things one classifies as art is entirely up to the person experiencing it is beautiful. I like to think that is how God wanted art to affect our world, not something forced but something that makes a difference in one life or maybe a million lives. Whether it is writing, music, acting, or on a canvas, it is there to enjoy and do something in our world. I think that free will has a lot to do with this topic and how the world takes art.

One of the big topics in these readings that stuck out to me is free will. As humans and as children of God, we get to be our own person and make our own decisions; that is why we all react to different art in different ways. L'Engle writes that we have been given the "terrible gift" of being able to "write our own story," and by writing this story, we also choose who we are. I do believe that, to an extent, God has a plan for us and knows who we are and how many hairs are on our heads; after all, we are made in his image. I also think that he shows his love for us by giving us the ability to be human, experience pain and immense joy, and learn and grow while ultimately finding our way to him. I think that C.S. Lewis did a fantastic job in The Great Divorce by showing just how much free will we have. Lewis creates a whole afterworld where the person at hand gets to decide how they spend their afterlife. Whether they were the perfect angel on earth or not, it was up to them to learn, grow, and make the journey up the hill to salvation. This same freewill applies here on earth and with things as little as personality traits and what kind of art speaks to us the most. I feel like in a way, we do get to choose what makes us feel the awe that art brings, not in a direct way but in the sense of having traits, ideas, and feelings toward certain things which create an attraction toward certain areas of our world and the beauty within it.

When I look at the Mona Lisa, I don't feel anything, but painting is life-changing for others. For me, it's the little things like the street art that you see driving through Abilene or a play at our very own Paramount Theater, these things are awe-worthy, and for a few moments during the experience of being in the presence of that art, the world makes just a little more sense than it did before. I can't feel the feeling of being in the presence of this type of art right now, and when I think about the feeling, it is almost as if I'm wrapped up in the presence of God. I believe appreciating this art is almost a form of worship. I don't honestly know how to explain that experience in more detail or depth, but it is almost an out-of-body experience; it's a beautiful but indescribable feeling. Gregory Wolfe says that "art invites us to meet the Other…. and achieve a wholeness of spirit" in his article "Art, Faith and the Stewardship of Culture," and that is a great way to describe the feeling that is felt when in the presence of beauty that grand. I think this wholeness, the sense of "more Named," and awe are all three the same thing just in different people's eyes.

Gregory Wolfe talks about how we, as a culture, have started to stray from the art of our time and how we are not replenishing our current society, and that got me to thinking. Our contemporary society seems to be so stressed about making something perfect that we are losing the artistic part. This stress is understandable due to the pressure to succeed that we all face, but the fact of the matter is that art isn't what it was. Van Gogh never sat questioning every stroke he made with his paintbrush, so why should we as a society try to perfect something. At some point, we need to let the art and God be, the idea of perfection is insane, and we are missing out on so much because of the pressure we are put under.

Overall, we should work to find that feeling and bask in it and all of its glory. We need to be better at loving everything we have, especially the art made right now; this world needs to be replenished in beautiful works. In that same way, we need to let the artwork within us in the way it is meant to. Great art works within everyone in indescribable ways, and I don't think that will ever go away.

The Awe in My Existence

In my short lifetime, I have had my fair share of beautiful experiences. One of my favorite things I have ever done is walk the streets of a small town in Ireland. I heard the sounds of children playing and birds chirping, some cars but not many; I could see the sun shining over the buildings and feel the light breeze on my skin. In this moment and moments like these, there is a sense of awe and wonder.

Throughout the last few weeks, I have had two specific lessons or, rather, questions that have stuck out to me specifically. We have read many papers full of big ideas, but a few have gotten my heart to wandering more than the others.

One idea that has been heavy on my mind and heart is the idea of how places and what we see around us can affect us so much. The reading "Thin Places" by Tinsley is one that covers this well. We have thin places and thick places in our world, places close to God that shine his light and thick places that are darker and further from the light we strive to find. There is a sense of awe and wonder that can be connected to the thin places. Where we find ourselves closest to God, it is easier to find awe and see the beauty. Scott writes in his article "Awe" that awe is the feeling one gets when in the presence of something beyond human scale. The definition makes it sound like such a great big idea and seems unattainable when it comes to finding something worthy of awe, but through our readings, we can see that awe is all around us. Being open to finding "awe" has been my biggest lesson so far. I have been more conscious about looking for wonder and beauty. I have begun looking at things the way Dillard would see them, with the same wonder she felt during the total eclipse, with a newfound sense of amazement. With the exact authenticity that we see within Catton's "Two Visions of Equal Force," my eyes have been opened to a whole new idea of beauty that is undeniable. There can always be some awe found lurking in the shadows in the world with mess and chaos. I think all three of these readings teach us this well; we see from Dillard, Tinsley, and Scott that we should be looking at the world trying to find the beauty and the awe. Then with Catton, we can wrap it up to understand that even if it isn't the happiness and the most beautiful, it still can hold a sense of awe in it.

This sense of awe always happens when I have my heart and mind open. Whether it be in the middle of the ocean on a kayak, walking past the London Eye, or merely sitting in the presence of someone I love, that feeling of awe and the idea of thin places is something that I hold in my heart now.

Another idea that I have gotten from the last few weeks comes from Dillard's "For The Time Being." Reading "For The Time Being" brought me lots of thoughts about my existence. Why am I here? Who am I within the masses? What is the point in all of this? Dillard's writing on "numbers" and "encounters" really brought these thoughts into light. Numbers pushed me to realize just how many people are in this world and how small I am within our universe. It is crazy to think that so many people die every day and are typically not affected by it. As a human on this planet, I am so small in comparison to what is going on. While it is made clear that one's life is minimal and unimportant, it is also shown how big an impact one can make on them. In encounters, Dillard gives examples of small encounters with people that meant a lot to her, and with that, she proves that while we are small in comparison to the masses, we are important in some sense to someone. These sections within "For The Time Being" got me to think about who I am and my purpose. Dillard uses her "FTTB" to really get her readers to ask some big deep questions about life, and I find that beautiful. There is no way we will ever be able to answer these questions or get anywhere close to it, but Dillard pushes our minds and hearts to try, and that is amazing.

The moments I had in Ireland's streets are where I find the most awe in, and the more thought in, I think about who I am and what I can offer the world. It is in those moments of awe that we can connect put these things into perspective. I am so grateful to have so much life to live and many more "awe" moments to experience.

some biblical essays

Present an argument for how you understand the inspiration and authority of scripture.

Throughout my childhood, I cannot say that I ever understood that ordinary people wrote the Bible; even today, this is hard to grasp. As I think about the inspiration and authority of scripture, my mind is boggled trying to figure out what I think and what I should believe.

Ultimately, I have to concluded that the inspiration and authority are not nearly as important as some may argue it is. Humans who are inevitably going to make mistakes were the writers of the Bible, but it was sent to us by God and I have to have faith that he gave me the information he believes that I need.

It is hard to think that every word written in the Bible is not necessarily true and that these authors likely added some of their own thoughts and feelings. God could have made the perfect Bible, clear and concise, sent down in angel arms but it makes it much more relatable and real to have something that was written by people like myself. I do not think the Bible would be the same if it had not been written the way it was, through human authors that made mistakes. I think that the Bible and our understanding of the Bible is inspired by more than one way. I believe that illumination is a possibility and that when I feel something deep down that God is trying to tell me something, it is real and true. I believe that in a sense this is how the Bible was written. Writers likely felt the need to write the stories and preach them, I find it hard to believe that God took over and told authors exactly what to write. I think that if the Bible were written by God himself through humans, there would be no personal views in the Bible. Everything would line up perfectly, but this isn’t what we have in our Bible. This is why I make the case that God essentially put something on their hearts, and they wrote what they felt was necessary. The Bible only says once that it is inspired by God in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. It makes sense that God inspired much of what was written and the ideas of the Bible came from God, but I do not think that every word came from him. The point of the Bible is not to be a perfect, utterly true story but rather something to shares Gods love and message. I agree strongly with what Hamilton says in Making Sense of The Bible that the author writes the scripture, God breathes on the words, and they come to life.

This is God, he knows what he is doing, and I believe that he would not allow something other than his teachings to be so widespread. Whether it was by direct inspiration or not, I still believe that in the end, the Bible is what God meant for us to have. I feel as if Christians needs to have faith in the thought that we have what we need, and I have come to terms with this. Even in the process of canonization and translation I believe that God had his hand in the work. Canonization process seemed to go quite smoothly, as the made such a well put together book. Those that did work in the canonization process had such a large job on their shoulders, it could not have been easy to get a committee to agree on such a big issue. I believe that just as authors had God giving them instruction, those that helped with canonization also had help. Through the translation process, I feel as if God played a part in making sure there was not anything too far off and that we kept the same message even as the Bible went from one language to another.

As for how authoritative the Bible is considering it is not written word for word by God, I believe that it is somewhere in a middle ground. I believe that the Bible is authoritative over our lives to a point, but we need to have the ability as a church to come together and decide what is really meant for us to live by. Being that the scripture is not written by God himself, I do believe that there are likely things included that God may not have intended to be included. The culture, personal views, and other factors all played a part in the result of these writings. I think that there are some parts of the Bible that we should not live by and we should ultimately work on deciphering through what would make sense. For example, God does not want us to go stone non-virgins. We are supposed to love our neighbors, and in cases like, this I believe that we need to look at which statement makes sense and which part has more authority. Deciphering through issues such as this can take a long time and a lot of knowledge about the idea to figure out the context and the views of the writer.

In conclusion, I believe that the Bible is inspired in the way of illumination as God laid a message on the writer’s heart, and then the passage was written after this. I also believe that while the Bible holds a lot of authority, we cannot believe everything the in passages due to the writers being influenced by different factors. I trust overall that God knows what he has given to us and will help us understand the Bible in the way we are supposed to as we walk with him.

When reading the New Testament, what is the value of learning history which occurred prior to the writing of the New Testament? Using specific examples, demonstrate how historical background affected the development of the New Testament and Christianity?

When overhearing a conversation, it is easy to get the wrong idea, if you do not know the whole context. The same can happen when reading the Bible. If one begins reading the Bible, it can be easy to mistake things to have different meanings or to not understand what is being said. There is much to learn through the history of what happened before the Bible and during the times that the old testament was written.

For example, looking into the writings and the times that The New Testament was written gives a whole new context to what one is writing. One part of history that really scared me in my learning history of the Bible was the revelation that Paul did not write all of the letters. Someone else may have wrote using his name. While to some, this may not be a big deal, in my mind at first, I began thinking back to the authority of the Bible. As I have said before, I do not think that the author changes much about how I look at these writings, but it is a little odd to think that we do not know who wrote these letters.

We can look at Alexander the great and how he and his successors were able to set the stage for Jesus and the Jesus movement by Greek becoming a dominant language and by the influence he and his people had on the world. By Alexander going out into the world on his military conquests, Alexander spread his Hellenistic culture to those around him. The influence this culture had on the world was big as the dominant language changed, cities were built, and everything was much more multicultural. These changes set the stage for Jesus by giving ways for the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to be spread widely and quickly.

Having a historical background and knowing what went into the making of the Bible, I now have a greater appreciation for the words on the pages I hold in my hands. The Bible took hundreds of years to perfect, by being written, going through canonization, then translated. There were so many great people who had a hand in making the book we all cherish for us. The Bible went through several different stages in the process of it becoming what we now know and love. First, the Bible had to be written, then it was used in the Christian communities, soon after collections began being made and writings were copied. After this, lists were made and selections were being made as to what passed the test and what did not, then ratification happened which was when the final Bible was accepted. It is interesting to see how, through all of these steps, the bible was forming into what would become the beloved holy Bible. I believe that God had his hand in what was put into the book and what wasn’t as he knew what needed to be included and what should not be.

Interpretation is much different when you have a solid background to also base your understanding on. When interpreting and reading the Bible, having background information helps one understand better what is going on in the passages. Being able to read the Bible as it would have been read when it was written to get the original meaning can help a lot with one’s own interpretation. Historical context will help one decipher through what is specific for that time and what is still relevant to this day. Cultural beliefs were very different hundreds of years ago and told, the Bible and Gods approach would be quite different, in my opinion.

I personally feel as if my faith has grown through learning more about the bible and how it came to be. At first, I felt as if my faith was being torn down but as we kept learning and digging deeper, I began to understand everything. Looking at the bible through a lens like this give a whole new lesson.

In conclusion, understanding the historical background will help build your faith as one sees history back up what the Bible says, make more sense of the things that seem a little odd, and increase one’s appreciation for the book one holds in their hands. Things begin to fall into place.

Read The Gospel of Thomas (on Canvas) and make a case for why you think it should or should not have been included in the New Testament canon based on the criteria for canonization we discussed in class. Be sure to cite specific examples from the text.

After learning about the process of canonization and writings that were not included, I still have concerns that readers are missing important lessons because some writings have been left out and many do not even know they exist. I believe that we may be missing something important by not including as much as we can, I also believe now that God will provide the knowledge we need. I have faith that these other writings were left out of canonization for a reason.

With The Gospel of Thomas, I do not think that it should have been included. I do not believe that these teachings are something that God would want taught to his kingdom. The Gospel of Thomas deals with many different issues and expresses views that are very different from what many of the other writings express. For example, Thomas expresses views of human’s able to save themselves without salvation through Jesus. The New testament makes it very clear that man must seek salvation through Jesus and Thomas disregards this completely by teaching the opposite. For the simple fact that Thomas and his Gospel do not line up with that of other writings, would be enough to keep it out of the New Testament.

Along with this, Thomas goes on to speak on many different ideas that are very different from the Gospel we know and believe in. More examples of views that differ would be that of Jesus, the messiah, and God in general. Thomas had many views on specific, large topics that were out of the realm of what the New Testament was teaching. For example, in chapter 70, Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. 2If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you,” while the interpretation of this can differ it is interesting to see that in a way it seems as if Thomas is saying to look inward for salvation rather than outward to God. This is one point that interested me, but there are many others. I also found chapter 114 very interesting as women are talked about in a way that I find weird for a gospel. In chapter 114 “Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." 2 Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. 3For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven,” this seems weird because the Bible is not an antifeminine book, nor does it make Christianity out to be this either. Many of the teachings in the Gospel of Thomas are weird, awkward, and do not fit well with the rest of the books, almost as if Thomas had not been paying attention and tried writing something, he wasn’t sure about.

I can only imagine the issues that would come about if The Gospel of Thomas had, for some reason, been included. People would be very confused on the fact these contradicting views had been added. Including Thomas would likely be very useless, no one would want to study something that doesn’t make sense, there would likely be no one preaching it, and it does not do the job that the Bible is meant to do.

Thomas would fit as a good candidate from canonization only if we got the clarity that helped fix the meanings of some ideas that harm the Bibles message. Thomas did not include any context of the sayings and teachings he gave to the reader, which could be leading to misinterpretation. I believe that if Jesus had said this, it was likely taken out of context when written out. Thomas does not give any more than the saying itself so we do not know anything in order to help interpret. We are also not sure when Thomas was written, which could be creating issues as no one knows if this was ever said or if it is word by word.

While a few weeks ago I would have argued that no matter what the circumstances were, we needed these other writings in order to get the whole picture. I have now come to the conclusion that God gave us the information that we needed, and that nothing should be changed as the Bible is the message he wants us to have.

unknown prompts... oops

The gospels all portray one story as quite different, which gives us an excellent full view of the life of Jesus. Each writer has their way of getting their story across in a way that their audience will need. Each story starts with their type of introduction.

Luke and Matthew both start their book with a genealogy of Jesus. Luke takes the genealogy back to Adam, whereas Matthew begins with Abraham as the beginning of the lineage. Both stories work in a way as to connect Jesus to all of his ancestors and prove his royalty and importance. Luke takes the genealogy back to Adam as a way of showing that we primarily all came from the same original ancestor; we are all connected in a way and equals. I feel like this is a way that Luke shows the compassionate side of Jesus, and it helps show that Jesus loves everyone. Matthew, though, starts with a genealogy that only goes to Abraham, which is the father of Jews. One of the reasons that this gospel is the most Jewish. While the genealogy provides the heritage of the savior, the birth narratives are very different. Luke portrays the birth narrative more romantically, and it is the story that everyone tells at Christmas time. Luke completes his birth narrative with angels and donkeys and a manger in a stable, whereas Matthew does not put as many details into the story. Then, Luke uses the birth story to show the difference between Jesus and John the Baptist. Matthew speaks more of Joseph's side of the story during the pregnancy and of Joseph's feelings. Matthew is trying to show Jesus' fulfillment of the prophecies.

Mark does not start with the birth story or the genealogy of Jesus but instead begins with John the Baptist preparing the way and then goes to Jesus' baptism. He then takes the story into John the Baptists and goes between John and Jesus. I think Mark does this to get to the point that he found more pressing. In Mark's mind, it was probably much less important to know the entire story than it was to see that we needed to be saved and that we have a savior to look to. Mark felt the need to get excellent teaching and extraordinary miracles into the story rather than worry about getting a story of birth through a virgin. Mark was not trying to create an account of high Christology, which is what would have come with the birth story. It is undeniable that the main point of Mark is to get the lessons and theology started.

John is a Genesis type of story, starting with "In the beginning," just like Genesis. The entire beginning of John has a genesis type of theme, hinting at the notion that Jesus has always been. Then, it goes on with the story of John the Baptist and his baptism. There is no birth story or genealogy in John, which adds to the Genesis theme. John gives Jesus a very high Christology in his gospel and skips right over the birth story, going with the notion of Jesus has always been and does not think the birth story is needed. By creating the idea of Jesus still being and always been, it makes him seem as being of God or as God.

The gospels all purposely start differently in order to contribute to their story, theme, and to get to their audience the way they wanted. Jesus' full image is built by the different ideas that all of the authors provided.

In each gospel, Jesus is portrayed to be a little bit different; each writer has a slightly different view and highlights some characteristics more than others. I believe that this is great and very important because it gives an excellent, well-rounded image of who Jesus is. Some of the most important characteristics of Jesus remind us of how much he loves us, how great he is, but also how he is still human.

In Luke, Jesus is a very compassionate man, showing his love for women, the elderly, the poor, and everyone in between. This image of Jesus starts very early on as Jesus' genealogy in Luke goes back to Adam, the man who started it all. This shows that Jesus is one of us and that we all essentially come from the same person. I love this idea of Jesus being demonstrated as compassionate towards everyone because other gospels do not focus nearly as much on Jesus being interested in all of the minorities. Jesus is seen many times being concerned with that of minorities, like "When the Lord saw her, He felt compassion for her, and said to her, "Do not weep." This is an example of Jesus caring about a woman, who in this culture most likely was not everyone's top concern, but Jesus of all people cared to comfort the woman. Luke presents his gospel in a very caring and compassionate way, creating a Jesus that I want to run right to in times of distress. This part of Jesus is very important and was very inclusive to everyone.

In Mark, though I personally think the most important traits that are portrayed are his sassy demeanor and his secretive personality. Through the story, these are two very obvious traits. Jesus' attitude, while maybe not meant, is my personal favorite. This attitude that Jesus is given creates a very relatable Jesus, I think of this Jesus as the one that keeps me in line. Personally, this is the Jesus I usually image to be sitting on my shoulder, saying to me, "are you so dull" every time I act a little out of character. I find this so important because we must also remember that we must be accountable to Jesus. In the same book, though, I believe that Jesus being secretive is also very important. He does not want anyone to know that he is the messiah; maybe he just wanted it to be a big surprise; perhaps he was a little scared, or maybe he thought a secret mission was cooler, but in the end, our Jesus still wanted to be secretive. Jesus seemed always to have an "shhh shhh" attitude. I find this important because it shows us that maybe Jesus was not as look at me as many think he may have been. We must remember that Jesus is human, and this contributes to his humanity. After all, he needed to protect himself a least a little bit. Mark gives us the most human Jesus of all of the gospels, so it makes complete sense that he has these human qualities.

In Matthew, Jesus is a teacher. Jesus is seen teaching through parables, and much of the book is his teachings. Not only were there many moments of teachings in this book, but it shows his teaching moving and growing much in ways such as "His ministry moved away from his hometown and into other areas due to a lack of faith, trust and belief in him. Matthew tells about this event in his Gospel (Matthew 15:38)." Jesus is a teacher but also a Jew and a miracle worker. There is a lot in Matthew that points to Jewish aspects such as the genealogy starting with Abraham, and then many of Jesus' miracles are highlighted in Matthew.

In John, Jesus is a joyful Jesus. He shows all of the most joyful times and hopes for his joy to be given to others. In 17:13, Jesus says, "And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves." I find this so beautiful as he wants his people to feel all that he feels. Joy is always my go-to reminder for myself, and I am constantly on my search for pure, true joy in this world, and to see Jesus hope for his joy to be given to be is so great. Jesus speaks of grief being turned to joy and more of the same idea. I specifically remember these parts of John because this is the Jesus I love; a Jesus who wants me to be joyful is the Jesus I want to follow truly.

I would recommend someone to look to the Luke description of Jesus before the others, mainly because he is a Jesus of comfort and love, which is what many needs and are looking for. Luke is also the most known already, as it is the story in which many get their birth story to read on Christmas. I do believe, though, that no one should stop with just one of the gospels; all of them are important in understanding who Jesus was.

In the end, all of the gospels give different images of Jesus, and this gives current Christians a view of Jesus as a whole, every bit of his personality. I believe that this was the main goal of the gospels being written, whether it was known or not at that time. Everyone has their favorite characteristics of Jesus, and these are some of my favorites.

Throughout the gospels, there are many verses that would make one go… "what??" being that sometimes the Jesus we feel like we know if portrayed as a little bit out of the typical character. These parts of Jesus' personality that are a little bit out of the ordinary help shape the character we love, though, not everyone is perfect, and it reminds me that we all have off days.

First, in Matthew, when Jesus kills a large number of pigs, there is a little bit of a shock. Jesus knew that the pigs were valued by someone, yet he has no issue sending demons into them and having them drown. These poor pigs died for no reason, the meat that could have been very useful to the people was wasted, and the owners lost the money that they might have paid for the pigs and lost what they could have made off of the pigs. It is hard to think that Jesus could have been that insensitive and inconsiderate to the people whom he was trying to teach.

In John, one of Jesus' more out of the ordinary acts happened when he was healing a blind man. Jesus spits in a man's eyes; it is obvious that this is not needed as he has healed plenty in his life, and in this case, he decided to spit in the poor man's eyes. It sounds a little weird and out of the ordinary to many. This is something that many would find humiliating and takes away the amazing joy that comes from regaining sight. I feel like this is such an out of character act for Jesus to commit.

In Mark, Jesus makes it clear that he does not want to make his teachings easy to understand, he says "That seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." This is quite literally Jesus telling everyone that he does not want everyone to easily understand because that would make everything too easy, and everyone could get into Heaven.

And finally, in Luke, we see Jesus be funny in a way but also tell us to take care of our self then take care of others. Jesus says, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you fail to see the plank in your eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye," and in my opinion, I read this as you can't help others if you yourself are not taken care of, which makes perfect sense. But, in my mind, all of this time, I have thought of Jesus as a man who would want us to take care of others and be as selfless as possible but taking care of oneself before others seems a little selfish.

Sometimes, there are weird little tad bits that people come across in the bible, and these verses make on scratch their head, but I think that it is meant to be this way. Maybe it is to get people to start thinking; maybe it is the author's personal additions, perhaps it is to show that Jesus was not perfect, or probably there is some lesson in it that we have yet to discover. Anyway, I do not think that these parts should be taken out or ignored; there are still great lessons even in the weirdness.

Many movies create different images of Jesus through their telling of the gospels, oftentimes using more than one gospel to get their story and get what they want. Many of these films follow a pretty good line of one gospel with sprinkles of others.

In the passions of Christ, I believe that there is a strong presence of the Luke gospel because Jesus portrayed is very compassionate and loving. Even nailed against a cross, Jesus still shows love and mercy and says, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing..." (Luke 23:34). Jesus is shown as being full of mercy and love. Jesus even goes as far as to heal a servant of the high priest's ear after it was cut off by followers of Jesus. Both of these incidences are in the film, and the gospel, and both follow the immediate theme of Jesus and his compassion. This is a type of Jesus that people want to see; it creates a good connection between the viewer and the film, which may have been one of the reasons that the writers decided to go with the Luke approach.

All movies are aimed towards a certain audience just as the gospels were. This is why they so often differ from each other in small or large ways. We have the ability to mix and match parts now in our current society to create a new image of Jesus. I feel as if this is okay because all four of the gospels are the way we get the full picture anyway. We were given different ideas for a reason.

Discuss the passages in which Paul and “Paul” address the roles of women in the church and in the home in different ways (a document with various passages in which roles of women are addressed is on Canvas). How do you interpret these passages and potentially relate them to the way gender functions in our world, churches, and homes today?

In Paul’s letters, women are seen in different ways. Women are seen as being submissive to men and equal to men. In my opinion, I believe that the passages of equality for women are the most important and the passages in which we should be listening to. The bible is interpretable in order for us to be able to know and get closer to God. I believe that in order to find the true interpretation of passages on specific topics such as this one we must first know the creator.

1 Corinthians 7:3 creates a picture of women and men being equals, as women submitting their body to their husband the husband does the same thing for his wife. Submitting of one’s body is often times seen as a way of being a way to allude to sexual acts, but I believe that it is often times so much more than this. When I think of this it is submitting oneself to pain, suffering, hard work, and love. There is a lot in a relationship in which one must sacrifice at some point and work for the relationship, so I believe that this is what it is saying. At the same time though I believe that it is important to think about the passage in the sense of sexual intimacy, so often even in our current society it is seen that women are to bow down to their husband and give into to what the man wants. Women and men alike both have to submit to one another and be in an equally vulnerable state in order for a healthy loving relationship to be built.

Galatians 3:28 goes through many different groups and ends with women and men saying that no matter which group one falls into, we are one in Jesus Christ. Again, this puts women and men onto an equal scale. This passage can be used in many different ways as it talks about so many contrasting groups, coming together as one makes everyone equal. This could be used to combat racist views, misogynist views, and more. I believe that this one can be interpreted in the exact way it is read and should be read, as everyone being equals. With this passage being limited to the three groups talked about I could imagine this being interpreted as not covering everyone or just simply ignored by saying it applies to the past. I think in today’s world a passage like this is important as it can be used to say that everyone is one, especially in the sense of women and men being equals. If we are all one in Jesus Christ, why should anyone be treated differently?

On the other side of the arguments there are passages in which it is said that the women should submit to their husband while not speaking on the position of the man in this idea. Passages such as 1 Timothy 2:8, it is said that women should be quite in full submission. I do not believe that the woman should be submissive and not have any say in a relationship, so I have to believe that this is not what this means. Maybe men were just left out, maybe this was cultural or maybe we simply have to find the real meaning by hearing God. I do not want to look at this passage and say that we should just ignore it because someone could say the same to my arguments. In our world, it saddens me to think that this is how some people think. Women are often times seen as the weaker sex, the man is always the hero in the story and the woman is the damsel in distress. This should not be the case though, women should be seen as powerful and amazing in their own way rather than being ignored.

The idea of women throughout the New Testament bible is less than what I would want for women. While yes, sometimes it is the idea of equality there are also more than enough moments in the New Testament that point to flaws in women or put men above women. Women are seen not only as being the submissive sex, but told to keep quiet, dress modest, and all of the good feminine things that women are told so often even now.

There are so many women stereotypes that say women are lesser and that women do not have the same power as men, but here we are in the 21st century with women doing things that men could only dream of. I think it is important to recognize that while women are different than men, we both have strengths and weaknesses, but if we work hard, we can do what the other sex can. Much of what the bible says about women is about them needing to stay silent and the submission to a husband, which I have no good explanation for, but I will never be the type of woman to sit in the corner or to submit to anyone. I believe strongly that women should be respected in the same way a man is. Through knowing God, I feel as if we can all find clarity but even if this is true, I do not think that a woman will be punished for doing what she feels is right. Our world today is much more accepting of women standing up for themselves and taking charge of their lives, so I believe that women should do just that. Some of the Godliest women I know are empowered and strong, fighting to be seen as an equal so I plan to follow this example.

There are so many back and forth ideas in the bible about women and their place in the home and church, I do not think that we will ever be able to get to one solid answer. We have the text we have for a reason, so it is up to us to figure out what we are going to do with it. We need to interpret, study and connect with God to determine the right way to go about. I will never have the perfect answer or interpretation, but I believe that we must talk about these passages and figure it out as a community with the guidance of God. Even if church the women of the bible are often times ignored and not really talked about, I can honestly not remember one time that I heard of a woman other than Mary during church. This is a great example of women being pushed to the side, with this I want to say that we have to bring this stuff up and talk about it within the church. Women in the bible need to be seen as well and we need to show just how important they were. We as a church need to discuss and dig deep into what women’s roles should be, and we need to stop hiding everything that is said about women.

Whether our society will admit it or not it is still very obvious that the women of our world almost feel as if they must do what the man wants, even down to the simple act of painting their nails the color that the man chooses rather than their own preference. This is an issue in the bible that I believe takes more interpretation that just the surface level stuff. I do not believe that our God would ever want to put women below men and I believe that we should live by the idea that we are all one in God. Equality is important and seeing women for the greatness they hold is also important. This topic is one that I believe everyone should take some time thinking about especially in our society today.