The attitude of Jesus of Nazareth towards women bearing sexual stigma was quite exceptional compared to that of his contemporaries. Behind this we can see, for instance, the radical idea of a woman being an individual capable of making independent decisions.
What do Gen. 2:24-25 and Eph. 5: 21-33 have in common? When rightly understood, they both provide an almost formula-like description for a pleasurable, loving, faithful marriage of oneness. And both passages are built on equality and mutuality. Modern science teaches what the writers of Genesis and Ephesians could not have known.
This passage is used as a key building block in theologies portraying gender hierarchy as God’s will. This is while the exegetes offer very contradictory interpretations of the text, typically concluding that Paul was not very logical in his argumentation or alternatively parts of the challenging text are simply ignored. In this workshop, an interpretation is presented that assumes that Paul is logical in his argumentation.
Listening to the redemptive spirit even within Scripture’s difficult slavery texts is essential for Christians who want to live out a faith that unfolds the fullness of Christ in our world. This general session will develop “movement meaning” within the text of Scripture and, in particular, within the slavery texts and then draw parallels to the egalitarian movement.
Too often the patriarchy of Bible culture has been confused with the moral teachings of Scripture. This workshop will explore how Christians working to end slavery challenged power, dominance, and self-interest in interpreting Scripture so that the church might become more effective agents of reconciliation in the world. What might egalitarians today learn from the interpretative methods of the abolitionists in their work as agents of gender justice?
How can we better serve and inform a growing diverse community with an egalitarian theology message that is clearly understood? What are better ways to create bridges of conversation that are not intrusive or divisive?