So get ye to the theatre! Invite everyone you know. Give a thanks to the good folks at Real to Reel!
You gotta give 'em hope. -- Harvey Milk
You gotta give 'em hope. -- Harvey Milk
Is this something that simply doesn't belong in the pulpit? Or... do you have no opinion on this, since your project is scholarly and not about faith?April provides a thoughtful, forthright answer that I am posting here:
There is a long history about this very issue - of faith and reason and whether reason should matter to faith. I leave that to your reading.She gives us much to ponder. People certainly are different. I keep trying to place myself in this spectrum of Jesus of history or Jesus of scripture/faith. I find myself interested in the storytellers I suppose. Why did these people tell the story in this way and what were they saying about themselves in their telling of it? I also like the stories of those who got pushed off the cliff. I like the heretics' Jesus. What inspired them to tell the story the way they did and why were their stories so threatening to the winners? That to me is the cool stuff.
For me personally this is very difficult for me to answer because even though my project is not about faith - it is an historical project - the results matter for some people of faith.
I have found that for some Christians they could care less, because for them the Jesus they know is the Jesus of the spirit and the scripture, the Jesus of faith as you put it. There is nothing that an historian is going to say that will make a bit of difference to their religiosity or change their perception of their own experience of God. They are like Paul, the apostle who knew next to nothing about Jesus' life or teachings, and this didn't seem to matter one bit to him in terms of his faith which was based on a mystical experience and conversion.
But then there are those Christians who want their faith to be factual, because for them only facts are true/truth. So they want to align their faith with what they understand to be historical facts about Jesus. It is for these people that the Jesus Seminar was so valuable, because it gave them a new "scientifically"-constructed red letter edition of Jesus' teaching, minus all the supernatural stories and theology.
For me to suggest that the Jesus of history may be lost to us, and all we have are memory constructions of him by Christians writing long after he is dead, can be traumatic for some Christians because we live in a society where truth and fact are equated, and where myth-story-memory-experience (which are definitely not observable empirical facts) are what? Untruth? Highly suspect? False?
So now we see scholars like Richard Bauckham coming to the rescue of these "faithfully nervous", trying out the argument that the early memory constructions in the gospels must have been those of eyewitnesses (they do?) because the texts make this claim (so what?) and because these eyewitnesses were the apostles (they were?) we can trust them (we can?) because they wouldn't purposefully lie to us (they wouldn't?) and we all know that our memories are fairly accurate anyway (they are?).
So I don't know if this answers your questions, which are honest and good questions. But should this information be distributed from the pulpit? I have found in my classroom when students begin to think critically about the scripture, many become angry and confused, wondering why they didn't hear about any of this in their churches. To these people, it matters.
The day that Jesus was raised to heaven, he left behind nothing but a woolen garment, a slingshot, and two sandals.Whatever comes we need to care for the least of these and we need to care for children, the sick and the old folks. The rest of us? Hell, it is an adventure. I don't know if I can convince my lovely of this but maybe it is time to unload all of this accumulated crap and ride the rails.
Jesus used to eat the leaves of the trees, dress in hair shirts, and sleep wherever night found him. He had no child who might die, no house which might fall into ruin; nor did he save his lunch for his dinner or his dinner for lunch. He used to say, “Each day brings with it its own sustenance.” p. 94.
Each day brings with it its own sustenance.
State GOP leader Robin Smith says the Tennessee Republican Party voted to strip Representative Kent Williams of Elizabethton of his Republican status.Here is Kent's statement about it on Tricities.com.
Last month, Williams caused an uproar by garning the support of every democrat to win the speakership by one vote over Jason Mumpower. He was the first Republican to be elected speaker in 40 years.
As a result, Republicans lose their 50-49 majority in the state House.
Here are previous posts I made about this story:NASHVILLE – Robin Smith has determined that I am not a Robin Smith Republican—-that is a Republican in her mold.
I have hoped for some time that my party would work to build a bigger tent, a more inclusive tent. My hopes may have been in vain. The tent Robin Smith wants is a small tent. A narrow-minded tent. A tent with no room for alternative ideas.
No matter what type tent she wants for the State Republican Party it is clearly not the tent of the Carter County Republican Party. I remain a Carter County Republican with the same principles that brought me to the General Assembly in the 2006 elections.
I own a small business and as reported in the Tennessean on this past Sunday I have a 100% voting record with the National Federation of Independent Businesses. I am a supporter of Second Amendment Rights to bear arms. I am a supporter of SJR 127, the anti-abortion constitutional amendment. I do not want Government involved in all aspects of our citizens’ lives.
I believe all members of the General Assembly should be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. I believe all legislation should receive a fair hearing. I believe we have a lot of capable and smart people in the House from both parties. In this time of crisis we need to utilize all of this talent and harness everyone who has the desire and ability to be a leader.
Apparently, these are not the traits of a Robin Smith Republican. She has made her decision. So be it.
Now let us move past this distraction and get to the real work at hand. This is a challenging time in our history. The people of Tennessee expect and deserve our very best as we move forward to address the major challenges before us.
Balancing the budget while still funding those items that are essential to keeping our state progressing will be a difficult task, but it is one that the General Assembly is up to if we join hands and work toward the common goal of what is best for the people of our state. We have a lot of work to do. We have to put our distractions behind us, join hands and work together.
Let’s move forward.
Together.

Creationist strategies have evolved over time but one factor has remained constant: a single, narrow religious perspective has been passed off as science and as the religious norm. Michael Zimmerman will discuss how these efforts diminish science literacy and promote a false conflict between religion and science. And he will suggest ways scientists and clergy can join together to promote a shared sense of respect.

Using the Polebridge title, Stones & Bones—selected by BioScience magazine for its Fall 2008 Focus on Books, Louise Mead will demonstrate strategies for introducing children to the marvelous nature of science as they take a walk through time to learn about the evolution of their favorite animals.

Recently states have enacted legislation promoting Bible courses. Is this a positive sign that Americans are recognizing the importance of religious literacy for cultural literacy—or a troubling indication that the line separating church and state is becoming increasingly blurred? Mark Chancey will examine the academic, political, and constitutional aspects of Bible courses in public schools.Good stuff.
The Gospel of Thomas tells few stories about Jesus, makes little of his death and resurrection, and perhaps most significantly, does not speak of Jesus or his followers as having “faith.” Why is this? The answer may lie in the difference “place” or “context” makes in the way the early Christian message was formulated. In an attempt to understand why Thomas is what it is, and is not what it is not, Patterson puts it in its place—Edessa, east of the Euphrates. As Thomas becomes more clearly a product of its place, he observes, the particular way the Christian message was formulated in the west will also become more clearly a product of its place. That leads to the question: Must Christian faith ever and always be about death and resurrection, about faith?Now that is a good question. Must Christian faith ever and always be about death and resurrection?