The Association of religious in Uganda (ARU) is an umbrella body for all religious Congregations working in Uganda which are registered with the Association. ARU is led by the body of Major Superiors of religious Congregations that form a body of the Assembly of Major Superiors of Religious Institutes in Uganda (AMSRIU).
ARU was founded by Women Major Superiors of Religious Institutes in 1968 under Mother Bernardine, LSOSF, who also doubled as the Secretary General. The formation of the Association followed an injunction of the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, requesting Major Superiors to set up National Associations of Congregations in each Country for purposes of collaborating on issues of common interest and finding ways to address issues/challenges arising from their work of evangelization. This body of Major Superiors which was approved by the Holy See in 1972 became a member of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, based in Rome.
To the name of ARU was added that of AMSRIU deriving from “Association of Major Superiors of Religious Institutes in Uganda” In 1995 when the religious men and women merged with the purpose of forming an integrated body with a common vision and voice for proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ,the newly founded Body took on the name: “Association of Major Superiors of Religious Institution in Uganda (AMSRIU).” In July 2014 the General Assembly of Major Superiors decided to clarify the name of Association so as to bring into the picture the members in the Congregation who seem to have eclipsed.


Hubby and I have been attempting to do devotions before bed every night to regroup and recharge our spiritual walk together. It has definitely been difficult, especially on nights when we’re both exhausted from long days. We’re attempting the “Refresh Your Marriage in 31 Days” plan from the Bible app.
Last night’s devotions stuck with me a little bit.
“In the beginning of marriage, a partner can do no wrong. If he comes home too late for dinner, she thinks: “Poor guy, I’m sure he’s stuck in traffic” or “I’m sure he has to work longer. Mean boss!”. When he finally comes home, she falls into his arms longingly, no matter how late it is. But after a few years of marriage, a different wind blows. She gets annoyed because the roast has become cold again or because the children are hungry and are having a sword fight using their forks. “He could have at least called. He is always only thinking of himself!”
The funny thing is the accompanying verse to this devotional was:
“Live happily with the woman you love through all the meaningless days of life that God has given you under the sun. The wife God gives you is your reward for all your earthly toll.”
I laughed a little when I told my hubby that I was his reward for all his earthly tolls. I don’t think he ever thought his reward would come with such a nagging soul and such severe mood swings. I think I forget sometimes that he works so hard at his job all day and has our best interests at heart. In the chaos of prying babies off each other, feeling useless at home, and being jealous of him for being out all day, I forget that he is the man of the house and that he takes care of us. Though he has difficulty changing poopy diapers and putting the babies to sleep, he does provide. He does worry. I think in moments of frustrations and anger, I just need to remind myself that I expect a lot of others, especially those who are close to me, and that I need to remember that I am strong and can get through things by myself, too. I feel like sometimes I rely or expect the help from others too much and I contribute a little more to the feeling of being helpless and useless in doing so. I just need to remember that I am strong and if my hubby can go out and work hard for us every day, I can work hard and tend to the house and babies every day as well. I feel like I’m definitely setting myself up to be a housewife from the twenties, but I think it’s just the place I am in my life right now. I just need to accept being home and taking care of babies for a while. Maybe this is what God has planned for me right now. Maybe this is the path I need to be on for a little while before I am able to focus on myself and further my plans. Maybe He’s reminding me that His plans supersede whatever plans I have for myself, and this is my path of getting back on track to His plan for me. Either way, I am praying for patience and guidance. I am praying that in moments of rage and frustrations, I am reminded of the love and grace that I am surrounded with.
I want to be the reward. I want to be worthy to be called a reward.


"Go and set the world on fire" was St. Ignatius of Loyola's famous call to the Jesuits to preach the gospel to the far corners of the world. Fr. Sebastian Rale followed the call of his order's founder and left France in 1689 to give his life to caring for the souls of native Americans. This he did for thirty years in a small mission village amidst the Abenaki people far up the Kennebec River. The village was called Narantsouack (i.e. Norridgewock.)
But this peaceful mission was not to last. In those few decades, Fr. Rale’s little village got caught in a blaze of controversy that ended in the mission being burned by a Massachusetts militia and its pastor being shot. Joseph Moreshead, a seminarian for the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, will discuss the origins of this conflict between Fr. Rale, the New England colonists, and the Abenaki people and how competing interests among the three parties led to such a tragic end.
Joseph Moreshead is a native of South Portland, Maine and a current student at the Catholic University of America, studying to be a Catholic priest in Maine. A graduate of Cheverus High School and Fordham University, Moreshead was educated for eight years by Jesuits like Fr. Rale. After extensive research on the Jesuit Relations, he led a pilgrimage to Fr. Rale’s grave last August. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and classical language.
The Kennebec Historical Society’s May Presentation is free to the public (donations gladly accepted) and will take place on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. at St. Mary’s Church located at 41 Western Avenue in Augusta.


In your walk with Christ many will look at your flaws and your failures. They may point at your area of struggle and weakness. They will laugh at you, they will judge you. Many will even dare to diagnose the cause of your struggle the reason for your pain. Mocking and scorning they will ask “where is your God” “aren’t you supposed to be a Christian?”
What they ignore is that as Christ followers we are all put up for a beautiful formation and transformation. We are put through a time where in our painful days we are able to feel the soft restoring hand of our HEALER. A time of dying to our selves where in the heavy breathing of surrender we are able to feel his incomparable GLORIOUS PRESENCE. We are able to experience something that is not of this world. Something that is unknown to the godless soul. We are able to experience JOY, incomprehensible, indescribable, exhilarating JOY.
In the midst of the times of pain, loss, shame, struggle and failure. Jesus grants us to experience this joy that is far more greater than any other things. Such as financial abundance, professional success, fame and glory. For all these things whit out JOY of the Lord are nothing! The JOY found in Jesus exceeds far more than any transient happiness this world can offer. That allows us to understand what exactly the psalmist was saying in Psalm 4:7 “You have put more JOY in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound”
Thank you Lord!
One thought on “The Greater Joy!”
It is amaizing ! Thank you for this great message.


Megan has a double bachelor's degree in music and music therapy. She studied at St. Mary's University in Winona and the University of Minnesota. She graduated at the top of her class and has been practicing music therapy successfully for over ten years. She has additional training in hospice and palliative care music therapy through The Center for Music Therapy in End-of-Life Care. She also recently became licensed through DHS to provide independent living skills therapies through the CADI and BI waivers. Additionally, she is a member of the Midwest Association of Christian Counselors and was recently published in their 2nd Edition: Grief and Loss Magazine for 2022. She was also featured in the 2017 September Guidepost magazine for her work with persons experiencing dementia.
Megan lives in Woodbury, Mn with her husband and their four children. She enjoys reading, gardening, playing the piano and all things music. She sings with her church choir and often leads worship as a cantor for services. Her passions are her family, faith and being authentic and loving in all her interactions. She prides herself on making the biggest ripple in the smallest pond, creating joyful experiences where she lives, loves and works.
“Megan [is] a wonderful leader. She gives us space and senses when we are struggling. We have been blessed to have her kind spirit and gentle direction here.” – Bereavement Group Attendee
“I am grateful to Megan for her sharing her insights and skills with us. She is not only professional, but also patient, compassionate, gifted and very organized. – Bereavement Group Attendee


© Ron Clark, 2006, firstname.lastname@example.org, ISSN 1661-3317
Archives - Vous trouverez ici les anciens numéros de lectio.
Ron Clark The Silence in Dinah's Cry
Die sexuelle Gewalttat an Dinah in Genesis 34 wurde von männlichen und weiblichen Exegeten verschiedener biblischer Forschungszweige diskutiert. Bereits ein erster Blick auf den Text hinterlässt bei Lesenden Fragen, Urteile und Anschuldigungen an die Figuren im Text sowie nach möglichen ethischen Implikationen. Eine genauere Analyse des Textes wirft Fragen nach einer angemessenen Guppenleitung und -führung auf sowie nach sozialer Gerechtigkeit in der Gemeinde JHWHs. Durch das Schweigen Jakobs, die Vergleiche zwischen Hamor/Shechem und den Jakobsöhnen und den Dialog unter den Hiwitern provoziert der Text die Lesenden zum Handeln.
Gewalt gegen Frauen sowie damit zusammenhängend die Gestalt der Gemeinschaft und ihr Glauben scheinen ein latentes Thema durch den gesamten Pentateuch wie auch in der israelitischen Geschichte zu sein. Der Text provoziert die Gemeinschaften noch immer.
Two alternative interpretations in one text
Two alternative interpretations seem to dominate the exegetical discussion of the Dinah story in Genesis 34.
The first interpretation suggests that Shechem did not rape Dinah and that the actions of Simeon and Levi were an expression of male dominance and control over women. While the text indicated that he had intercourse with the virgin, the interpretation of שכב, it is believed, does not suggest violent sexual action. According to this interpretation Dinah was out looking for a man and was taken by Shechem. While Shechem's intercourse was not acceptable by Jewish standards he was following the cultural standards of his own people. In 34:3 Shechem fell in love with Dinah and was willing to marry her. The intentions of Hamor and Shechem were about honor, love, economic advancement, cooperation, and trade. The deceit, slaughter, and treachery by Simeon and Levi robbed Dinah of a chance to marry her love and find security in a loving relationship. The cruelty of the sons of Jacob was an injustice to Dinah, her husband Shechem, as well as the city of Shechem. Judgment upon the irrationality of the sons of Jacob was a warning, given later by Jacob, concerning their abuse of power that dominated Israel. In Genesis 49:5-7, Jacob has the last word concerning their actions and refuses to accept any part of their vengeance. This is viewed as the final words on their actions.
This interpretation is also illustrated by the silence of Jacob. His silence is interpreted as being reflective of a cool spirit and desire to act in a manner beneficial to both Israel and the surrounding neighbors. While his sons acted as “hotheads” and deceived the peaceful Shechemites, Jacob tried to act with honor, forgiveness, and patience. The sons were those who overpowered the rational side of Israel and acted in a disgraceful manner. Jacob’s sons became odious because they lacked self-control and were irrational.
This interpretative line is also present in Anita Diamanti’s book The Red Tent, which suggests that Dinah was not raped. This fictional account portrays the intercourse between Dinah and Shechem (Shalem in the book) as a wonderful loving experience, “Shalem knew of my delight in him, my gratitude for him, my lust for him. I gave him everything. I abandoned myself to him and in him.” The slaughter of the city of Shechem brought pain and sadness to Dinah, who was robbed of her chance to marry her lover and live in happiness. After the slaughter of Shechem, Diamanti had Dinah screaming, “Look at me, for I wear the blood of the righteous men of Shechem. Their blood stains your hands and your head, and you will never be clean again.” Jacob, the sensitive hero in The Red Tent, is not part of this unholy alliance and his silence is seen as his strength and wisdom.
Both aspects of this interpretation cast judgment on the sons of Jacob for their deception and vigilantism. Their abuse of power is condemned since Dinah and Shechem, according to this interpretation, were willing to form a bond and attempting to benefit the community of Israel. Dinah’s leaving home was an indication that she wanted to find a marriageable man in the foreign community. Jacob’s silence was understandable since he would have wanted to make the best out of a bad situation. Instead of listening to his wisdom Simeon and Levi were accused of acting as uncontrollable vigilantes.
The second interpretation suggests that Shechem raped Dinah and that Shechem and Hamor were men who manipulated and tried to abuse power on a helpless girl and her clan. Jacob's failure to respond was a weakness and unwillingness to vindicate his daughter. The sons of Jacob acted deceitfully because they were a small powerless group. The יקב or “heel grabber” concept, which Jacob had practiced before he met Esau, was now being used by his sons for survival. Circumcision, slaughter, and spoiling were methods used to communicate that Israel, as well as Dinah, should not be humbled as a prostitute. Their answer to their father in the form of a question, “Should he treat our sister as a prostitute,” (Genesis 34:31) suggests that they felt justified in their actions and that the narrator leaves the audience with the question to ponder and reflect on the story.
Did Shechem Rape Dinah?
The application of these theories leaves the reader with questions concerning violence against women. Does judgment concerning the abuse of power rest on the victims or perpetrators? How should leadership address the misuse of power and sexual rights? Should the faith community be angered by the humiliation and oppression of the weak?
The silence of Jacob and the actions of his sons are alleged answers to these questions. They challenge the reader to either react against their actions or in light of them.
The application also may suggest something about our response to sexual violence. Susanne Scholz indicates that the text, from a feminist perspective, poses an ethical dilemma. “How shall readers deal with the rape in light of the killing? In a culture that rarely addresses the issue of rape it is not surprising that a story about the rape of a woman and the murder of the rapist did not get much attention.” She also suggests that interpreters, in their attempts to be objective, may “marginalize the rape and advance an understanding that supports rape-prone theory and praxis.”
Re-examining Genesis 34
In this section Jacob and his family have moved to the region of the Hivites. Dinah has traveled out of the camp to see the daughters of the land. While away one of the sons of the village chief, Shechem, saw her, took her, and had intercourse with her. Afterward Shechem spoke tenderly to her, possibly out of love. The exegetical debate concentrates on this section of the text.
One view concerns the interpretation of יצא, קכב and ענה. Dinah’s going out, יצא, has been interpreted as an improper action. Genesis Rabbah states that her “going out” indicates she is acting like a whore (80:1.y; 80:2.i). It possibly indicates that she left her home to see the foreign women of the region. While this seems to be a harmless action to modern readers, other commentators indicate that her actions represented defiance, curiosity, independence, or a need for companionship. Does יצא indicate that Dinah was a young woman fleeing the oppressive nature of her father’s house in order to seek love with a forbidden man?“
Dinah leaves because she is Leah’s daughter and not dependent upon Jacob to help her…At the opening stages of chapter 34, she is ready to break away from her family, if only temporarily, and is looking to find a new assembly of people, ‘the women of the land,’ who, she hopes, will embrace her and make her feel more secure and at home.”
Second, application of the phrases “intercourse,” שכב and “defile” or “humble,” ענה, are also in question. Was Dinah the victim of violent rape or involved in consensual intercourse? Lyn Bechtel defined the use of שכב not as rape but only as sexual relations. While ענה indicated humbling or afflicting, it is only in the sense of losing sexual purity (Deuteronomy 22:22-27). She suggests that only when בכש occurs with חזק (overpower) is the act of rape implied (Deuteronomy 22:25-27; 2 Samuel 13:11-14). She would suggest that in Genesis 34, Shechem only took, לקח, Dinah which, with שכב, implied intercourse and not necessarily rape. Bellis gives compelling evidence that “abducting” virgins, i.e. eloping with them, in nomadic cultures, is an acceptable, albeit non-preferred, form of choosing a wife and consummating the marriage. Bechtel sees the sons of Jacob as the real culprits because they were not willing to share, as were Dinah and Shechem, with their neighbors. Shechem violated the clan’s purity and the sons of Jacob were intent upon destroying the Shechemites for fear of losing pride.
Shechem’s love and tenderness, after the intercourse, are also interpreted as his willingness to marry Dinah and are indications, to some, that he did not rape her. He spoke kindly to her and wanted her as a wife. This, according to Bechtel, is not a sign of a rapist but a youth overcome with passion. The Hebrew writer is seen as one passing judgment because Israel’s cultural norms were violated, not because Shechem raped Dinah.
The other view in the debate suggests that Shechem did rape Dinah. Dinah’s motion away from the camp does not become the issue. While definitions of יצא may cast Dinah as suspicious, the use of יצא in the story indicates motion. Dinah is in motion from Israel’s camp to the city of Shechem. Jacob has purchased land from Hamor and has earned the right to work, worship, and live peacefully in the land (33:19). Dinah’s motion to the city of Shechem should not be a threat but an act within the context of peace and trust. Hamor moves, יצא, to Israel’s camp in order to maintain peace or cover his son’s violation (34:6). The sons of Jacob come, בא, from the field and grieve (v7). Shechem and Hamor come, בא to their home to talk to the men (v20). The men of the city were those who went out, יצא or departed from the city, possibly indicating men of war (v24). Finally, Simeon and Levi come upon the city and the other brothers come upon the slain, וַּיָּבִִִאוּ (25, 27). It seems that the Shechemites would not have felt threatened by the sons of Jacob because they were fulfilling their agreement. However, the city was deceived and the motion was violent rather than peaceful. The word יצא seems to indicate motion to a foreign community (Shechem or the camp of Israel, v1, 6) with a potential threat of conflict while בא seems to indicate coming without the perception of violence or to establish peace (v7, 20). The irony was that, due to the covenant between the Shechemites and Jacobites, Shechem became “home” to Simeon and Levi before they attacked. The irony was also that Shechem should have been friendly to Dinah since Jacob had bought land from Hamor, making it a safe environment. The יצא should not cast suspicion upon Dinah but Shechem. Dinah should have felt safe in the city but he treated her as an outsider.
Dinah’s humiliation, regardless of her location, does seem to be a major focus in the text. The use of the Qal waw imperfect ראה, לקח, and שִכב produce the result and the Piel waw imperfect of ענה (defiled) indicated an act of humiliation and shame. Dinah was humbled because her virginity was violated when Shechem humiliated her by his actions of seeing, taking, and having improper intercourse with her. ענה also suggests oppression and violation of another’s human rights. While a common word for intercourse שכב was used the surrounding verbs indicate a violation of Dinah’s personal rights and sexual exploitation. Just as Amnon lay with and humiliated Tamar, in 2 Samuel 13:14 (ענה and שכב), as an act of rape, so Shechem equally humiliated Dinah by having sex with her. Here a difference to 2 Samuel 13 becomes important: the text uses the words שכב אתהּ what can be translated as “he laid her,” because Dinah is the object, instead of the more common “he laid with her” שכב עמּהּ with Dinah being a willing participant.
I think that the beginning of this text sets the stage for the upcoming negotiations between Hamor and Shechem (34:4). Shechem demanded that his father obtain Dinah as a wife, קח לי את הילדה הזאת לאשה (notice לקח in the imperative). It is also interesting that Shechem does not refer to Dinah as a young lady, נערה (v3), but as a child, ילדה (v4). The narrator seems to indicate that Shechem’s desire to marry is also about control. In the text Hamor is forced into negotiations due to the indiscretion and desires of his son. A surface reading of the text suggests that Shechem loves Dinah, but his affection for her is displayed by sexual lust (שכב) and a desire for ownership (child ילדה rather than young maiden נערה).
The first four verses of this text suggest that Dinah is the victim of Shechem’s greed and lust.
The showdown begins between the heads of both the clans. Hamor and Jacob started the negotiations, however short lived they were. Hamor as the chief, נסי, of the city approached Jacob, the head of his clan. For some unknown reason Jacob waited for his sons to return from the fields. The negotiations began with Hamor and the Jacobite clan. In a turn of events the sons of Jacob entered the negotiations. Shechem also entered the discussion. I think it is interesting that Jacob was silent during these negotiations. What began as a dialogue between the two heads of clans ended as a dispute among sons.
The use of אב, בת, בנ and אחת are also interesting indications of the judgment from the narrator. In the beginning of the text Dinah was called בת ליה, the daughter of Leah (v1). She was called Jacob’s daughter during the humiliation (v3, 5, 7). During the dialogue with Shechem, Dinah was indirectly called a daughter and sister (her father and her brothers, v11). At the point when the perpetrator spoke, without confessing wrong, was a point when Jacob could have passed judgment. Yet the text indicated that it was his sons who spoke (v13). From this point forward Dinah is their sister, אחתם (v13, 14, 31) or their daughter, בתני (v17). Jacob only speaks at the end of the text and is not referred to as her father. While the sons were Jacob’s sons (v5, 7, 13, 25, 27) Dinah became the property of her brothers (v11, 17, 25). Compared to the strong alliance between Shechem and Hamor Jacob and his sons are divided. At the end of the story Jacob rebukes his sons while his sons question their father and his family ethics.
The deception of the sons of Jacob would be understandable to a father who practiced a יקב lifestyle. After the meeting with Esau (Genesis 33) and the blessing from Yahweh (Genesis 32:28) Jacob, whose identity was “heel grabber,” had become a settler (Genesis 33:18-20). His sons answered deceitfully, רום, which would have been typical of Jacob’s conduct. Dinah was humbled, ענה, defiled, טמא, and foolishness had been done in their clan, נבלה (v2, 5, 7). Jacob’s sons reacted as powerless people seeking vindication for an attack upon their sister as well as their very reputation. They became יקב, “heel grabbers,” rather than their father.
Hamor and Shechem discussed the value of a covenant between the men of the city and the Jacobites. Shechem did not confess any wrong but, along with his father, discussed the benefits of trade, commerce, and an alliance with the outsiders. The men blindly followed the chief and his son, who was more honorable, כבד, than any others. They were able to persuade the men to become circumcised since all their livestock and property will belong to the Shechemites (v23). It seems that it was not only the sons of Jacob who spoke deceitfully to those of the family and city of Hamor.
The story ended with Simeon and Levi going out, יצא but this time they were not humiliated. They humiliate. The powerless was no longer a young virgin; it was the sore and suffering men of war. From what the text indicates, Dinah was taken from Shechem’s house – suggesting that she was there since her עני (34:26). The men were killed and the city plundered. The sons of Israel humiliated the mighty Shechem, who had humiliated the daughter of Israel. The sons of Israel struggled with God and man and overcame. In light of the anger and powerlessness that they must have felt it is understandable why they acted in such a gruesome method. If one only understands the anger, frustration, and helplessness that causes vigilantism then the actions of Simeon and Levi become clear.
The text ends with a question rather than a judgment. Genesis 34:30 indicates a judgment from Jacob, “You have brought ruin on me” (עכרתּם אתי) As the head of a clan Jacob’s reputation or honor, כדב, was important. Jacob claimed that he was an offensive odor or stink, באש, to the Canaanites and Perizzites. His shame and fear were grounded in his fear and insecurities. The man, who shamed his brother and deceived his father and father-in-law, was now concerned about his own reputation. Jacob’s failure to act or speak seems to be explained by his fear of the powerful Canaanites. Jacob, in this section of Genesis, failed to act as יקב.
Simeon and Levi asked a question that may have expected a response or have been rhetorical. “Should he treat our sister [not your daughter, R.C. as a זנה?” I think that this question is similar to Jonah 4:11 which also demanded a response. No, Shechem should not have treated her as a זנה. It seems that Jacob was left with an ethical dilemma illustrated by the underlying statement, “Should you/we let her be treated as a זנה?"i
Simeon and Levi: Heroes or Fools?
Early commentators on this text do not condemn the sons of Jacob but they do condemn Shechem’s behavior. Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 1:21:1) wrote that Dinah went into the city of Shechem during a festival in order to see the women of the city. According to Josephus Shechem “defiled her by violence.” In his account Simeon and Levi slaughter the men of the city during another festival. For Josephus, the actions were ruthless but an act of vengeance because their sister was raped. Philo uses metaphors between Dinah, who represents justice, and Shechem, who represents greed and uncontrollable behavior. Philo alludes to the story of Dinah and Shechem but clearly condemns the man’s actions.
Pseudo-Philo indicated that Shechem raped and humiliated Dinah and that the sons of Jacob murdered all of the people in Shechem (Pseudo Philo 8:7.5-8). In the Testament of Levi the author suggested that Levi saw himself as an avenger and vindicator of the one who did an abominable thing to his sister (Testament of Levi 6:4). While the author wrote that their slaughter and deception of the Shechemites was a sin (possibly in the eyes of their father who cursed them in Gen. 49), Levi stated that God had passed judgment upon the Shechemites. Testament of Levi claimed that the Shechemites were immoral and tried to do the same thing to Sarah and Rebecca. The Shechemites were guilty of murder and rape and died not at the hands of Levi and Simeon, but by the hand of God (Testament of Levi 6:11). Finally, the tract Joseph and Asenath suggest that Simeon was the violent tempered man who was controlled by Levi. Yet this text indicates that Shechem insulted the sons of Israel by defiling Dinah (Joseph and Asenath 23:2; 14). Due to this the Lord punished Shechem and lifted up Levi for his zealousness.
Were the sons of Jacob correct in their actions? One can only speculate. While it is easy to judge their actions from a modern perspective I believe that the Hebrew writer has left indications for us to understand judgment and meaning in the story.
Judgment and meaning in the story
Little is written about the narrator’s judgment on the story except Genesis Rabbah which indicates that his judgment (34:27) was from the Holy Spirit. First, the text tells us something about violence to women and social justice. The humiliation of Dinah was defilement טמא, and folly, נבלה, in Israel. Simeon and Levi became the heroes not because of their zeal for ritual purity but because of their desire for social justice. Shechem degraded Dinah, despite how he treated her afterward. Greed, power, or envy did not motivate Simeon and Levi; anger and a feeling of powerlessness motivated them. “Should he treat our sister like a זנה?” was a question of social justice. Dinah’s helplessness was a reflection of Israel’s feelings of powerlessness. Their deception was a method of leveling the playing field with a powerful city.
While there is strong debate over whether Dinah was raped (sex by force) or had consensual sex with Shechem the narrator gives indication that what was done to her was wrong. Shechem is not vindicated by ancient commentators and his actions, according to the narrator, were נבלה and brought נבלה and טמא on Dinah. Dinah is silent, but the narrator is not. Shechem has violated the rights of Dinah as well as the covenant with the Jacobites. His emotions afterward are inconsequential. His actions have already spoken to the reader. The narrator is crying out for justice, even if Dinah cannot.
Second, the text tells us something about leadership. Jacob’s silence and hesitance before and during the negotiations indicated a failure to lead. While Yahweh had been active in Genesis 33 and 35, God was now silent. Hamor and Shechem displayed more unity than Jacob and his sons. After Genesis 34:11 the sons of Jacob seem to defend their defiled sister. In the end, Jacob avoided conflict from the oppressors rather than confronting them. While Simeon and Levi acted deceitfully, Jacob refused to act. Leadership should not allow a sister in the community to be humiliated.
While debate again exists concerning the voice of Jacob, the question remains, “Why doesn’t Jacob vindicate the one whose name means “judgment” or “justice” (דני)?” Jacob is as silent as Dinah, until the end. The final discussion has Jacob speaking but not having the last word. The story ends with a question which is meant to provoke thought and reflection. Yet the question does not come from Jacob but his sons, who display leadership in a story focused around violence, manipulation, oppression, and fear. While vigilantism is not the answer to a leadership crisis it happens when one exists.
The Scream of the Past: A Culture of Domestic Violence
In my experience with ministry in abuse and sexual assault, I have noticed that people tend to blame abuse on alcohol, drug addiction, race, or economic status. Domestic violence affects all races, social groups, and sexes. My clergy trainings with Communities Against Domestic Violence (CADV); a non-profit organization committed to creating awareness in our communities, have focused on faith communities and leadership. Faith communities are viewed as being slow to respond to abuse and sexual assault. Faith communities do not teach and preach texts such as Genesis 34. Is this silence similar to Jacob’s?
Power and Relationships
Power is needed for human existence, relationships, and self-identity. When this power is shared among people it creates a web of relationships that have the potential to sustain life, create communities, and build other relationships.
“In its ideal form, power as the ability to engage in internal relationships is virtually synonymous with life itself. In this sense, power is potentially nearly identical with sexual energy.”
According to James Poling power is both personal and social. Personal power is actualized through a relational web while social power is actualized in a social web. All humans use power in relationships with people, communities, and institutions. Sometimes this power is misused in an attempt to control or abuse others. A person’s fear and desire to control life motivate the abuse of power. This control may be achieved through the use of institutions and one’s ideologies. Abuse is about gaining control. “When a man hits a woman, he has not lost control; he achieves and maintains control.” Power and control are at the heart of domestic violence, abuse, and rape, not addictions.
Power should be shared personally and socially in the web of relationships. In abuse and sexual violence this power has not been shared because men have found a way to use power in their relationships with women. This abuse has occurred institutionally through male privilege and ideologically through social tolerance and teaching. A culture that allows the oppression of women and destruction of masculinity has been created through this abuse of power.
“In essence, it is the combination of a belief in male authority, the objection of women, a socio-cultural system that forces women to be economically dependent on men, and the ability of batterers to use physical force with relatively few legal or social consequences that accounts for why family violence is so pervasive and why a disproportionate number of victims are women.”
Sexual violence is caused by an institutional and ideological abuse of power. Men use this power to manipulate, control, and/or humiliate women, the community, and their families. Shechem used his honor to violate Dinah and manipulate her family, his father, and a city. His failure to admit that he violated Israel’s honor was an indication that he disregarded the Jacobite clan. His manipulation of the young girl was also a manipulation of Israel. The social web of power had been created through Jacob’s purchase of the land (Genesis 33:19) but was disregarded through the humiliation of Dinah. Shechem and Hamor’s negotiations with Israel and the men of Shechem was a further step in manipulating the social web of power in order to advance their personal and commercial interests.
Condemning women caught in sexual or domestic violence, for their location or powerlessness is an example of ideological abuse. The victims should not be further victimized. Dinah should not be victimized or further humiliated. Her movement, location, dress, motives, or attitudes should not be used to condone her oppression. Shechem’s motives or lack of force should also not justify his humiliating Dinah. Genesis 34 calls the community of faith to be angered concerning violations of social justice. Why, because the sisters of the community do not deserve to be humiliated.
The Scream of the Future: The Response of the Community
The real issues behind Genesis 34 involve Jacob’s silence and the narrator’s judgment. The communities of faith have been accused of failing to help victims of abuse. According to some authors, churches and synagogues have contributed to domestic violence and empowered abusers to continue controlling their spouses. This accusation has come about because of the community’s lack of response to the issues of domestic violence or condemnation of victims.
Communities of all faiths have been accused of supporting abuse and sexual oppression because they have been silent on the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault. The community’s silence, as Jacob’s silence, continues to empower abusers, vigilantism, deception, and shame. Just as Jacob was silent and failed to act on behalf of Dina, his violated daughter, faith communities have also been accused of failing to act for their violated sisters. Why are they silent? Is it possible that we continue to become entangled in discussions of whether Shechem used force or truly loved Dinah? Have we created fictional love stories rather than listening to Dinah’s humiliation? Is it possible that the narrator, who is outside the story, is the only objective voice in the problem?
Dinah was called the daughter of Leah (34:1). Since Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah is it possible that Jacob’s failure to act was due to his dislike for Dinah? Is it possible that Jacob felt a prejudice against Dinah due to her mother or her “improper actions?” Communities may have failed to act because of similar prejudices. Assumptions that women who are battered have chosen their “bed” or seem to desire these relationships are at the heart of failures to act in abuse cases. Assuming that women who are raped or date raped asked for this because of dress, location, profession, reputation, or personality are judgments upon their יצא. Assuming that boys will be boys only justifies Shechem and calls us to remove the foreskins of truth and become victims ourselves. The sons of the community should not care about יצא, they should care that נבלה should not be done in their community.
It is also possible that Jacob’s choice to be silent was due to fear. In 34:30 he was angry because he was “a stench to those around.” His willingness to enter a covenant with a pagan people is surprising, since Yahweh did not command him to do this. Levi and Simeon’s decision to fight when the men were sore may indicate that Hamor’s city had an army that could only be defeated by Jacob’s clan through deception. Communities of faith may fail to act for abuse and rape victims out of fear. The fear of legal issues, law suits, restraining orders, confronting abusers, and angry people may cause churches and synagogues to withdraw their hand from victims of abuse and sexual assault.
For whatever reason Jacob refused to protect Dinah, the Genesis text seems to disrespect his actions. Proverbs 21:13 states that “The one who shuts their ear to the cry of the poor will cry out and not be heard.” Deuteronomy 22:23-29 assumes that a raped woman’s screams would be heard by others and she would be rescued. There seems to be no excuse for the community’s silence or failure to respond concerning the issues of abuse or sexual violence. Nancy Nason-Clark has indicated that Christian churches’ silence about sexual violence has been regarded by some as an act of complicity.” God expects the faith community to respond to the cries of victims.
Many of the Christian and Jewish communities of faith have also been accused of supporting abuse because of a strict stance against divorce. They call men and women to be together through “better or worse.” Abuse is considered the “worse” part in marriage and women are asked to stay and make their husband happy. In other cases the woman feels guilty and responsible for the breakup of the marriage. Churches and synagogues may have contributed to marriage becoming an institution and abuse of power rather than a relational web of equal power. Rather than a covenant the marriage has become a method of enslavement.
Finally, Christian churches have been accused of using the scriptures to subordinate women to men. Texts concerning the sinfulness of Eve/women (1 Timothy 2:9-13), prostitutes and sinful women (Proverbs 5), Yahweh’s statement against divorce (Malachi 2:14), women who cause the angels to sin (1 Corinthians 11:2-10), and complete submission to husbands (Ephesians 5; Colossians 3) have been used to create “an abusive society maintained and supported by the dominant mythologies of the day.” Yet Yahweh has never encouraged men to control, abuse, or oppress their wives.
Many have viewed the communities of faith as silent or oppressive towards victim’s rights and protecting those in abuse. This has created a Theology of Suffering, as is described by some scholars. This Theology of Suffering has become a problem to those in abusive relationships. The pressure to “bear one’s cross” or “suffer with Christ” teaches them to tolerate unhealthy patterns in marriage. It teaches them to feel isolated, since their church family is silent or unwilling to help them. It also teaches them to feel oppressed since they are taught that the scriptures “command” their submission to brutal men. While they may identify with the oppressed and crucified Jesus on the cross, it can be unhealthy to their spiritual growth. While a constant focus on the death and suffering of Christ will stunt spiritual growth, so this similar focus can encourage these victims to continue as caretakers, dependents, and cause them to struggle with self-esteem.
- The prevalence of sexual violence raises questions about human nature.
- The silence of the church and society on sexual violence raises questions about the nature of community.
- The structure of oppression in sexual violence raises questions about God.
The community of faith must answer the question: “Does our sister deserve to be treated as a זנה?” This question not only requires an answer but a response. If the answer is yes, then we humiliate the victim, as did Shechem. If the answer is no, then what do we do? Should we continue in silence out of fear, hesitation, or weakness, as did Jacob? If the answer is no, the Hebrew writer encourages us to respond as leaders of a community of faith. While deception and vigilantism may be characteristics of a יקב, heel grabber, community; they are not characteristics of the community of faith. The community of faith is challenged to respond through leadership, confrontation, boldness, and a strong faith in Yahweh.
In this way the community wrestles with God and man and overcomes.
In this way there is no silence in Dinah’s cry.
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982): 275, 277; “The report on Shechem is obviously given from a polemical Israelite perspective. While there is indication that his intentions were not entirely dishonorable, the story is tilted against any good intention he may have had … there is no hint in the son’s proposal of anything but good faith, even if it is good faith that is tinged with rancor and a reluctance to compromise.”. Brueggemann also claimed that Shechem and Hamor sought cooperation, largeness of vision (one people, v22), and advanced economic interest.
Since the sons took Dinah out of Shechem’s house (34:26) Fewell and Gunn assume that Dinah was there of her own accord, see Dana Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, “Tipping the Balance: Sternberg’s Reader and the Rape of Dinah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110:2 (1991): 200.
 See also Naomi Graetz, “Dinah the Daughter,” A Feminist Companion to Genesis, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1993). Graetz indicates that Shechem was willing to obey the law of the Mesopotamian legal sources by offering a bride price. “The brothers were wrong to interfere with his obligation to marry and wrong to cut off her only chance of marriage.” (Graetz, 308). Brueggemann also wrote that the brothers’ insistence upon Shechemite circumcision was a result of the desire for social control and exploitation. Their demand for circumcision, slaughter, and looting was disproportionate to the original offense (Brueggemann, 278).
 Noble claims that the narrator’s attitude that Simeon and Levi overreacted is seen in Jacob’s deathbed curse (Genesis 49:5-7), see Paul Noble, “A ‘Balanced’ Reading of the Rape of Dinah: Some Exegetical and Methodological Observations,” Biblical Interpretation 4:2 (1996): 193.
Brueggemann refers to Jacob as “the seasoned voice of maturity,” and his response (Genesis 34:30) as “one of clear-headed pragmatism:” “If Jacob would have had his way, the settlement with Shechem would have been honored” (Brueggemann, 278, 279). “Hamor and Jacob are peace-loving and conciliatory; their sons are impetuous and heedless of the consequences that their acts must entail.” (E.A. Speiser, Genesis Volume 1: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1962], 268).
 Fewell and Gunn claim that the sons take over the argument without giving Jacob a chance to discuss the issue (Fewell, 198). Neufeld also wrote that “Jacob should have realized that his sons were being deceptive, and if he did, then he should have tried to intervene or at least delay matters long enough to determine what they were up to.” (Ernest, Neufeld, “The Rape of Dinah,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 25 : 222)
“The sons remain blind to the larger economic issue, blind to the dangers they have created, blind to the possibilities of cooperation, and blind even to the ways they have compromised their own religion in their thirst for vengeance and gain” (Brueggemann, 279).
Anita Diamanti, The Red Tent (New York: Picador, 1997): 192.
I will discuss below the sources that indicate that Dinah’s “going out” was a sign that she was acting like a prostitute.
“The need to exercise restraint, pending the arrival of his sons is understandable, but his passivity, throughout the entire incident is remarkable” (Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary [New York: JPS, 1989]: 234). Wenham also is surprised that a fierce reaction from Jacob does not occur when he is informed of Shechem’s actions, see Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, The Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1994): 311.
Noble believes that the offering of a bride payment, מהר, was, to Simeon and Levi, a statement that Dinah was a זנה (Noble, 194). Wenham claimed that Simeon and Levi were heroes defending ritual purity and social justice (Wenham, 319).
Of Genesis 34:31 von Rad wrote: “To be sure, Jacob’s role here is weak. His censure is more a peevish complaint. By contrast the answer of the two sons is proud and implacable; and the ancient reader, who felt more than we do the burning shame done to the brothers in the rape of Dinah, will not have called them wrong.” See Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, Old Testament Library, revised edition (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972): 334.
Susanne Scholz, “What ‘Really’ Happened to Dinah: A Feminist Analysis of Genesis 34.” Lectio Difficilior 2:2001, www.lectio.unibe.ch/01_2/s.htm
The LXX calls them Horites (χορραιος) I have noticed that the newer version of BHS no longer considers this a variant.
The Hebrew has also been translated “be seen by…”
The verb יצא “to go out” has an Akkadian and Aramaic equivalent which indicates promiscuous conduct. Sarna, 233. Some commentators see this as a judgment upon Dinah’s actions by the Hebrew writer (Graetz, 312; Wenham, 310. Genesis Rabbah 80:1).
In Neusner’s translation the writers blamed Dinah for the whole episode. She is compared to her mother Leah (Genesis 30:16) who also went out as a whore to her husband, see Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation, Volume 3: Parashiyyot Sixty-Eight through One Hundred on Genesis 28:10 to 50:26 (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1985), 145-47. Cotter also mentions that there are two historical thoughts on Dinah’s “going out.” One (Josephus and Theodotus) indicate that she was attending a Shechemite festival, and the other (Talmud) suggest that she was practicing immodest behavior, see David W. Cotter, Genesis, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 252-3.
The daughters of Canaan (24:3,37; 28:1,6,8) and of Heth (27:46) were terms expressing disapproval in Genesis. Being with the daughters of the land, בנות הארץ, may also indicate improper association with pagan people (34:2).
“Girls of marriageable age would not normally leave a rural encampment to go un-chaperoned into an alien city. The text casts a critical eye upon Dinah’s unconventional behavior through the use of the verbal stem יצא” (Sarna, 233). Sarna also indicates that post-biblical uses of יוצאת בחוץ indicate a woman exhibiting promiscuous behavior (ibid., 367).
Ita Sheres, Dinah’s Rebellion: A Biblical Parable for Our Times (New York: Crossroad, 1990): 84.
Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Women of Genesis (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990): 91.
Sheres, 82, 84.
The focus of ענה indicated defilement or a loss of personal sexuality. It can be used for pre-marital sex with virgins (Deut. 21:14; 22:24,29), prostitution (Ezek. 23:17), or adultery (Ezek. 18:6,11,15; 33:26). The term, however, reflects oppression, affliction, and weakness. Sarna suggests that the “Three Hebrew verbs of increasing severity underscore the brutality of Shechem’s assault on Dinah” (Sarna, 234).
Lyn M. Bechtel, “What if Dinah is not Raped? (Genesis 34),” Journal of the Study of the Old Testament 62 (1994): 24.
Bechtel also claims that in Dinah’s case, similar to Deut. 22:22-24, the humiliation occurs because she has no hope of bonding with Shechem, since he is a foreigner. The Piel of ענה indicated an intense humiliation (ibid.). Fewell and Gunn claim that Dinah could have been defiled, טמא, only because she was no longer a virgin (Fewell, 207).
Alice Ogden Bellis, “Dinah and Shechem: The Politics of Interpretation and the (Aes)Et(h)ics of Translation,” International SBL Conference, Singapore, June 2005.
Bechtel claims that “Sociological studies reveal that rapists feel hostility and hatred toward their victims, not love.” Elsewhere Bechtel writes that the psychological context does not indicate that this is rape.” (Bechtel, 29, 31).
Wenham does suggest, however, that Dinah was “sailing too close to the wind” (Wenham, 310). Geller suggests that she is only making a “friendly acquaintance with the women of the land.” This because of the covenant between Hamor and Jacob which should have opened the door for friendly relationships, see Stephen A. Geller, “The Sack of Shechem: The Use of Typology in Biblical Covenant Religion,” Prooftexts 10 (1990): 3. Josephus, Antiquities 1:21:1, indicates that she attended a Shechemite festival.
“This second ‘going out’ is intended to ameliorate the disastrous consequences of the first [going out by Dinah]” (Sarna, 234).
I think that “humiliate intensely” may not be the best understanding of Piel ענה (Bechtel, 24). Williams indicates that the Piel can suggest causative or repeated action of the verb. The humiliation of Dinah can suggest defilement or impurity, see Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, second edition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976): 27. Keefe suggests that the chain of verbs indicate rape, see Alice A. Keefe, “Rapes of Women/Wars of Men,” Semeia 61 (1993): 87. See also Sarna, 234, and Cotter, 254.
Notice that seeing and taking indicate greed or lust in Genesis (3:6; 6:2).
Scholz also suggests that the translation of cleave indicated that Shechem “kept Dinah close to him” which does not indicate love but control.
Sarna suggests that this “taking” is to “make amends for the taking” in 34:1 (Sarna, 234).
Hamor is called a נסי, which is a chief over a rural city, rather than a מלך or king over a city-state. The city of Shechem is still rural during the time of this story and Hamor’s democratic discussion with the men of the city, is not typical of a king but an influential ruler (Sarna, 233). Josephus, (Antiquities 1:21:1) calls Shechem a king.
Notice that Hamor went to talk with Jacob, אחו (v6) but spoke with them, אתם (v8), possibly the brothers.
“Jacob’s passive role in the story is never more remarkable than it is here, where after Hamor’s speech, not Jacob but his young sons take over the conversation and stipulate the conditions.” (von Rad, 333). “The need to exercise restraint […] is understandable, but his [Jacob’s] passivity throughout the entire incident is remarkable” (Sarna, 234).
I think it is interesting that the text switches from our daughters to our daughter (v16,17). It seems to me that the writer is telling the reader that the sons, rather than her father, were acting on behalf of Dinah.
Shechem is referred to as the son six times (2,8,18,20,24,26) and Hamor is his father five times (33:19; 34:4,6,13,19). What is interesting is that their relationship is mentioned throughout the story while Dinah’s protector switches from Jacob to her brothers.
Notice that Jacob made a practice of deceiving, while also being deceived, until after his meeting with Esau.
I am suggesting that יצא in 34:24 means for those men “able for war”. The text Joseph and Asenath suggests that the men of Shechem were 30,000 warriors (Joseph and Asenath, 23:2).
“The story in this telling offers no helpful words for the female – or male – readers. We all do well to be angry about this incident.” (Ralph W. Klein, “Israel/today’s Believers and the Nations: Three Test Cases,” Currents in Theology and Mission 24 : 234).
Regardless of the meaning of יצא, Dinah did nothing that deserved being treated as a prostitute (against the interpretations presented above). Simeon and Levi did not interpret her motion to the city as grounds for sexual intercourse. Bellis indicates that the issue was permission from the male rather than rape. In the ancient semitic world the victim is the man to whom she belongs. Lying with Dinah with only her consent suggested that she was a prostitute.
“The text, which does not explicitly criticize the brothers for their violent act of revenge or Jacob for being a silent father, is left wide open to interpretation” (Graetz, 305).
Louis H. Feldman, “Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, and Theodotus on the Rape of Dinah,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 94:2 (2004): 262.
Lamp indicates that the Shechemites, in T. Levi 6, were punished for 1) violating Dinah, 2) their desire to do the same thing to Sarah, 3) their persecution of the nomad Abraham, 4) harassment of Abraham’s pregnant flocks, 5) their mistreatment of Jeblae, who was born in Abraham’s house, see Jeffrey S. Lamp, “Is Paul Anti-Jewish? Testament of Levi 6 in the Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65:3 (2003): 419.
“Nevalah is a powerful term describing offences of such profound abhorrence that they threatened to tear apart the fabric of Israelite society” (Sarna, 234). Brueggemann indicated that תמא was used in the P document for ritual purity (Leviticus 5:2; 11:25, 28; 12:2; 15:18; 22:8). The narrator was supporting P for a desire to purify Israel from the Canaanites (Brueggemann, 275). Noble wrote that the term תמא was the narrator’s term, not the sons’ of Jacob (Noble, 189, 192).
Wenham, 319. I also think it is interesting that the T. Levi and T. Simeon were concerned with justifying the actions of Levi and Simeon. The texts indicate that the Shechemites were violent people and indicated that Levi was opposed to the agreement with Shechem. For further discussion see: Tjitze Baarda, “The Shechemite Episode in the Testament of Levi: A Comparison with Other Traditions,” Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism, A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude, ed. Jan Bremmer, F. Garcia Martinez (Kampen, the Netherlands: KOK Pharos, 1992): 11-74; Benjamin Goodnick, “Simeon the Scapegoat,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 20 (1992): 168-73, 81.
 James Newton Poling, The Abuse of Power (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991): 25.
Carol Adams, Woman Battering (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994): 11,14.
Ron Clark, Setting the Captives Free: A Christian Theology for Domestic Violence (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2005), 87-90. For the Jewish community’s response to abuse from clergy see Carol Goodman Kaufman, Sins of Omission: The Jewish Community’s Reaction to Domestic Violence (Cambridge: Westview, 2003).
Clark, “Submit or Else: Intimate Partner Violence, Aggression, Batterers, and the Bible.” Psychology and Biblical Studies, National SBL Meeting, 2006, www.psybib.home.att.net/2005/clark.submit2.htm.
Clark, Setting the Captives Free, chapter 9.
“As long as Christian theology and pastoral practices do not publicly repent their collusion in sexual, domestic, and political violence against women and children, the victims of such violence are forced to choose between remaining a victim or remaining a Christian.” Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza, “Introduction,” Violence Against Women, ed. Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza and Mary Shawn Copeland (Maryknoll, NY: SCM Press, 1994), xviii.
Joanne Carlson Brown, “Because of the Angels: Sexual Violence and Abuse,” Violnece Against Women, 4. See also Fiorenza, xiv-xv; and Nason-Clark, 4.
Pour avoir le meilleur résultat d'impression utilisez le download du file pdf, s.v.p.
is the preaching minister for the Metro Church of Christ in Portland, Oregon. He and his wife Lori minister to families and victims of abuse. Ron has authored Setting the Captives Free: A Christian Theology of Domestic Violence. He teaches adjunct for George Fox Evangelical Seminary and Cascade College in Portland.


"As for me, it is good to be near God. I have made the Sovereign Lord my refuge; I will tell of all your deeds" (Psalm 73:28).
A colorful scarf encircled her bald head while her rail thin body laboriously, yet steadily, walked from the medical center parking garage to the oncologist's office. Finally sinking into a waiting room chair, she turned to me with a bright smile on her pale face: "Isn't God GOOD?!"
Cancer that been detected in her breast while her third child was only a few months old had spread inexorably to lymph nodes, bones and was now, less than two years later, slithering into the recesses of her brain. She and her husband had recently chosen to stop treatment since medical experts agreed that nothing more could be done to halt the disease.
"Isn't God good"?? What kind of statement is that when Amy was already videotaping farewell messages to her three children? Is this denial in its most basic, and cruel, form? What "good" could there be when this writer, counselor, brilliant intellect, wife, mother would soon be buried and turned to dust?
Through good times and bad, times when it was easy to trust in the goodness of God and other times when he seemed absent, Amy had made it a practice to believe that she lived in the refuge of a good God.
Amy lived only a few weeks after that morning when I accompanied her to the doctor's office, but they were weeks of quiet joy as her husband, children, friends and family members gathered daily in her bedroom. Amy's deep desire was to be a partner in ministry with her husband and see her children grow up. Instead she was showing them how to live?and die?in the presence of a good God.
~Thank You, Lord, for the privilege of knowing Amy and for her decisions to be a vessel through which the goodness of God could be seen.
Describe how this story affected you upon reading it. What was the characteristic that impressed you the most about Beth? How do you suppose she became the person that she was during this time of great suffering knowing that she was near death?


Last night after dinner* I was standing at the sink washing dishes. I had just picked up Wally’s tray when it became clearer to me than it usually is that this is not how I wanted to be spending my time, so I put the dirty tray back on the counter and joined Caroline, Jay, and Wally on the playroom floor.
The boys were occupying themselves, intensely focused and independent as they tend to be in the last minutes before bed when they intuit, perhaps, that even the slightest little whine will provoke a quick exit to the changing pad. I turned on Pandora, the algorithmically enabled Internet jukebox. The first song up was “Shake it Out” by Florence and the Machine, easily my favorite radio hit of the last year. It’s anthemic and exalted and conjures exactly the kind of out-of-body sizzle that’s missing on an ordinary weekday night at home. (I also predict it’s a song my sister will (or does) like a lot. I hope she’ll let me know.)
I was sitting across an oval of wooden train tracks from Caroline and as the song played I realized I’d rather be sitting beside her. I inched across the carpet towards her and upon reaching her side we put our heads together. The noise of the room filled in around us: the music, Jay repeating, “Daddy can you help me,” Wally (who talks here and there these days) chirping to be read the large hardcover book he’d managed to tote all the way across the room. We ignored them as long as we could, then Wally jabbed Caroline in the cheek with the corner of his book and we resumed being parents. I thought afterward that this is how life feels most of the time: simultaneously abundant and just out of reach.
Which reminds me of one other thing I wanted to write about today. I had a dream last night about Jesus’s disciples, which *definitely* counts as the first Bible-themed dream I’ve ever had. They were two guys dressed in modern clothes, walking down a city street, talking to each other and trying to decide whether this guy Jesus they’ve been following around is the real deal or not.
For the last month I’ve maintained a tenuous commitment to reading the Bible. I’m reading the Old Testament on my own and Caroline and I have been reading Mark together a chapter at a time a few nights a week before we go to sleep. It’s a pious picture, I know, husband and wife reading the Bible together before bed but in practice it feels less momentous and the pleasures we take from it are more secular: the narrative is interesting, it’s important, and it’s always nice to read (and be read) aloud to.
The exciting thing about reading the Bible in a start-to-finish way, rather than jumping from passage to passage, is that you really feel the momentum of a whole new belief system coming into the world. Judeo-Christianity has been such a dominant cultural force for so long that it’s hard to imagine it as the underdog. But when Genesis opens there are no Jews and when the New Testament begins there are no Christians. You know that in time these religions will come to dominate the ways in which billions of people frame their very existences on earth and it’s breathtaking to read about their nascent days in that light.
There is a striking symmetry between the Old and New Testaments. Both tell the story of an upstart trying to prove himself: In the Old Testament God is trying to prove himself to the skeptical Israelites; in the New Testament Jesus is trying to prove himself to the skeptical disciples. Both God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament come bearing specific and sweeping morality codes: God delivers the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai; Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount. And both God and Jesus have their own techniques for demonstrating their might: In the Old Testament God rains plagues on the Egyptians, parts the Red Sea through Moses, and provides manna from heaven; in the New Testament, Jesus performs miracle cures, walks on water, and transforms five loaves of bread and two fish into enough food to feed a multitude.
Caroline and I have joked in light of these demonstrations of overwhelming power both the Israelites and the disciples seem a little obtuse.
Last night I read the chapters in Exodus where the Israelites are wandering in the wilderness after escaping from Egypt. They’re complaining to Moses about a lack of food (Ex 16:3), “If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” Not days earlier these same Israelites had seen God part the Red Sea for them and then bring it back together to swallow up the advancing Egyptian army. But now here they are, hungry in the woods, wishing they’d never left home. You can imagine an exasperated God muttering to himself, “How many oceans do I need to rend before they’ll believe in me?!”
The same is true in the New Testament. In a passage in Mark that I blogged about this summer, Jesus and his disciples are out in a boat and caught in a storm. At the time the storm hits the disciples have already seen Jesus perform a number of healing miracles, but still they’re terrified that they’re going to drown. After Jesus has calmed the storm he turns to his disciples and says, “Have you still no faith?”
The Israelites and the disciples are both a little slow to catch on. At the same time, the leap of faith they’re being asked to take is so great. I’ve found it fun to wonder how much evidence I would have needed before I would have been willing to entrust my life to an upstart God or a heretical fisherman. A lot, I think. So much, in fact, that it’s almost hard to imagine the standard being met.
*Korean-style short ribs that took all of 20 minutes to prepare and received the top honor handed out in the Hartnett house: “We could serve this to guests!”


About the Author
Welcome to Original-Bible.com.
The purpose of this website is to discuss the history of the Bible, and demonstrate that it is a human document. It is interesting, inspiring, and valuable certainly, but unworthy to be looked upon as the foundation of moral or intellectual reasoning - an attitude which causes so many problems.
I hope that my criticism of the Bible is of a kind that encourages people to hold on to elements of the Bible, and of Christian faith that are constructive and positive.
Though I myself am agnostic, rather than a believer in the doctrines of any kind of Christianity, I have at times in my life been greatly touched and inspired by elements of Christian teaching. I hope that by shedding light on the human origins of the Bible texts this site will enable more people view the Bible realistically, with its complex and human history rather than be blighted by the irrational and superstitious attitudes that many in our culture are caught up in.
In ancient times there was a Christian group called the Marcionites, whose Bible contained a much shorter version of the epistles of Paul. For a long time the traditional church has said that the differences between the two versions of the epistles of Paul arose because sections of text had been removed from the Marcionite copies; however, a number of scholars and historians have re-examined this issue and concluded that the Marcionite version of the epistles of Paul were actually much closer to the original texts, and that the traditional version has had numerous passages added to it. A discussion of the evidence on which such conclusions are based can be found in the articles on this site. Many of the most troubling and illogical aspects of the writings commonly attributed to Paul are found only in those inserted passages (pre-determinism for example in Romans 9, and many other topics too).
Through the careful study of ancient sources it is possible to identify many passages and books in the Bible that are not authentic. Once such texts have been identified and removed, the teachings that remain are not only more authentic from a historical perspective; but, also more logical, self-consistent, and positive.
Thank you for visiting.


The Princely Church Complex is an archaeological monument in Dorohoi municipality, of a national and universal value, being registered on the List of Historical Monuments under code LMI – BT-II-m-A-01984. This prestigious complex, loaded with history and bearer of the spiritual inheritance of the Romanian people, comprises the old halidom of “Saint Nicholas” Church and the Bell Tower.
“Saint Nicholas” Church is the oldest architectural monument in the municipality, dating from 1495. It was founded by the prince Stephen the Great, the protector of Moldova, renowned and high regarded for his good habit of building churches and monasteries as a token of his appreciation for the victories obtained in the battle against the Turks.
The place has a special significance for the Orthodox Christian community in the area, as the land around the church served as a cemetery until 1890, when the graves were displaced. The church was restored in late 19th century and early 20th century, more precisely in the period from 1896 to 1921, yet it retained its original walls and form in their entirety.
“Saint Nicholas” Church was built in old Moldavian style, with brick and stone walls, 1.3 meters thick. The construction has round abysses, small, narrow windows, a tower that rises on two basestars, and a cupola shaped like a dome.
It is no exaggeration to say that this holy shrine is a true architectural jewel. It has one of the most beautiful exterior decorations, in Byzantine style, with glazed bricks in different colors. The interior painting was executed approximately 500 years ago, and it still survives to this day, as if on purpose, to enrich the souls and to strengthen the faith of the locals and pilgrims travelling long distances to get here.
In the church yard of the Princely Church Complex stands the Bell Tower. It was made of brick in order to endure the better or tougher times which passed over this land. The tower soars into the sky, to the west of the church, whence the song of the bells and the prayers for the protection of the lands from Dorohoi have been ascending to the heavens for centuries.


Thursday, August 6, 2009
Getting The L Out of Here. Part 6
Double Jeopardy! This is the response one gets from those who believe, teach and confess Limited Atonement. The thought behind it is that if Jesus died for the sins of every person then to send the unbeliever to eternal hell is to punish them a second time. This would be unfair to our fair mindedness but God is free to operate under his own rules or none at all.
2 Corinthians 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.ESV
However, we see in the above section that because of Jesus’ perfect life, death, burial and resurrection God is no longer counting trespasses against anyone. One will object and mention that people still go to hell. Those who go into everlasting punishment do not end up there because of sin but rather unbelief. John 3:18.
Each and everyone of us are by nature sinful, unclean and an enemy of God. In loving kindness Jesus came and bore the entire curse of the law for every person ever born. This gift is received by faith and is reject able by those who either do not see the need for saving or rather try and do it for themselves. St Paul addressed this type of unbelief in his letter to the church at Galatia. So horrible is this and terrifying he uses extremely harsh language later stating that those who seek to justify themselves have fallen away from grace and are severed from Christ:
Galatians 5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. ESV
When we trust solely in the finished work of Jesus we have nothing to fear. The fact that he paid for all sin we do not have to fear that he did not pay for us. Rather we can look with confidence that our sin was nailed to the cross and paid for entirely by Jesus who was later raised so we also shall be raised. We can hear with confidence the good news that Jesus died to redeem us. This is probably why John Calvin was so unsure when teaching on the sacraments. One cannot have firm trust in baptism and the Lord’s Supper when one is convinced Jesus did not die for everyone for how can you know these gifts are for you? Jesus died for each of us! We can trust the promises associated with baptism and the Lord’s Supper not doubting that it is for us! Is that radical good news or what?
In the Name of Jesus. Amen. †


The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, Doctor of Philosophy in Counseling, 1992.
Dissertation: Post‑traumatic Stress and Life Adjustment in Adult Males Sexually Abused as Children
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO, Master of Sacred Theology, 1970.
Concordia Senior College, Ft. Wayne, IN, Bachelor of Arts, 1966.
Who's Who Among American College and University Students, 1983. Nominated by Department Faculty, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC


The Mustard Seed seeks to meet the
spiritual, physical, emotional, and intellectual needs of adults with
developmental disabilities by providing a loving and protected Christian
community with meaningful activities that allow the participants to
fulfill the potential that God has created within them.
The Mustard Seed is a private §501(c)(3) charitable organization and by
choice does not receive government funding. In addition to Seedsters'
monthly tuition, support relies on individuals, corporations,
foundations, churches and others who believe in our mission.
Christmas Open House Please join us on Saturday, December 7th from 10am-3pm for our annual Christmas Open House. You can shop our beautiful Gift Shop as well as enjoy performances by our Bells of Faith Handbell Choir (11am and 1pm), purchase delicious foods from our Parents' Bake Sale, take part in our Silent Auction, and shop our Seconds Sale. Click here to view our additional openings for Saturday Shopping.
Racin' for the Seed Duathlon and
5K - April 5, 2014
the Seed” is a 5K run/walk followed by a 13 mile bike and another 5K run/walk.
All proceeds will go straight towards the Mustard Seed ministry and help the Mustard Seed to continue providing a
loving Christian community for adults with developmental disabilities. Click here to learn more about the race.


You Can Give Right Now
The Bible says in Matthew 6:24 that the top competitor for our commitment to Jesus is money. Giving allows us to demonstrate that He is more important to us than material things. Not having cash or check on hand doesn’t have to hold you back from giving, you can be obedient today by giving online. There is no organization with more potential to change the world than the local church!
Text to Give
Text GIVE to 707-600-6010.
Write your check to Jesus Reigns Ministries and mail to 3467 Sonoma Blvd Unit 10 Vallejo, Ca 94590, Attention to JRM Treasurer


Marilyn Jones-Bryant, Pastor/Founder
The Place Where Joy Never Ends!
MjB Ministries525 Brentwood Avenue P. O. Box 10302Greenwood, MS 38930ph: email@example.com
IMPORTANT NOTE: ALL ACTIVITIES WILL BE HELD AT THE FREE WILL CENTER, 525 BRENTWOOD AVENUE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
NOTE: DON'T FORGET TO LISTEN TO ANNOUNCEMENTS DURING SERVICE OR CHECK ANNOUNCEMENT BOARD REGULARLY FOR ADDITIONAL EVENTS.
Sunday Morning Glory, EVERY Sunday- 11A ~ Messenger: Pastor Marilyn
MJB Outreach Ministries CONTINUES
Worship Bible Study, EVERY Thursday - 7p
Health & Wellness, EVERY Monday & Tuesday - 6p
Sunday, February 17th - Pastor Speaks at Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church, Greenwood, MS ~ 3:00 p.m.
Sunday, February 24th - Pastor Speaks at the People with a Purpose Ministries, Grenada, MS ~ 3:00 p.m.
PREKARE 4 Kidz - Monday ~ August 20 - May 2013 (7a-6p) - Toddlers to 4 years
Community Aftercare (CAP) - 3 - 6p M - F - Resume Fall (August 20) (PK - 8th grade)
Health & Wellness - 6p MT - August 22
Worship Bible Studies - 7p Thursday
Happy Birthday to Vision Believers, Supporters and artners of MJB Ministries
Bre'Annia Shorty, 6th
Patrick Self, 9th
Bernice Williams, 21st
All rights reserved. Copyright 2012
Come Visit US At Our
Free Will Center of Help, Hope, Healing & Heaven
and our MjB Community Learning Center
in Greenwood, Mississippi (right off Highway 82E)
You'll Be Glad You Did...I know you will.
Web Hosting by Yahoo!


An English IKEA decided to release 100 live cats overnight. Why? Why would you question such a thing? The video is the most amazing and life-affirming event. Ever. Embrace it. Watch it a thousand times. Watch it ten thousand times.
The Church of San Vitale, the masterpiece of Byzantine art in Ravenna. Construction began in 526 by Bishop Ecclesius under the Ostrogothic queen Amalasuntha (d. 535) and was consecrated in 547 during the reign of the emperor Justinian. This octagonal church, built of marble and capped by a lofty terra-cotta dome, is one of the most important surviving examples of Byzantine architecture and mosaic work.


This web site exists to support the Catholic Identity Curriculum Integration by sharing information, resources, tools and strategies that Catholic educators can use to develop rigorous standards-based, Gospel values-based curriculum for their dioceses and schools. This is a dynamic site and will continue to grow as new information and resources become available. Throughout the CICI-Online site two points of focus constantly interact: elements of Catholic identity and rigorous academic standards. The entire CICI initiative from its first moments to the present rests on the reality that Catholic schools use appropriate national and state standards as a foundation for good educational practices. Going beyond those standards to educate the whole child is our responsibility. Catholic schools cherish each child by giving each child the knowledge, skills, and understanding needed to transform the world in the light of Gospel values.


Our next COMMUNITY DINNER will be at WHITEHALL UMC on January 26, 2020. Dinner is served from 4:30-6:00 pm. Preparations begin at 1:00 when we begin cooking & setting up the dining room.
Watch for the signup sheet in the Narthex to sign up to help or contact Tim Price at (614)404-6668 or email@example.com. The church is located at 525 Bernhard Road, Whitehall, Ohio 43213. Thank you for helping bless our friends and neighbors in Whitehall.


top of page
United as God’s people, manifesting Jesus Christ to the church and to the world through the grace of baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Our Vision impels us, together as brothers and sisters in Christ, to foster God’s ongoing work of renewal of the church and the world, by lovingly witnessing to the transforming power that comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in individual and communal life. We are committed to doing this in communion with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
bottom of page


Not many people know this, but I used to be a Church of England Priest (Ordained 1991 – Coventry Cathedral).
Here’s a little something I put together in a quiet moment…
Ten Modern Marriage Vows.
This is for those who aren’t necessarily religious and would like a form of words that hopefully will make you feel your relationship is sealed. A different kind of relationship you might want to seal anywhere but a Church.
You’ll see what I mean. I hope it helps.
I‘ve turned it into a very small PDF. If you would like a copy email me at email@example.com telling me you would like a copy and I’ll email it to you.


Grace and peace to you in the name of God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
God's grace is a wonderful gift, and we, at Reformation Lutheran, gather to celebrate God's love and mercy to us through Jesus Christ. We invite you to join us Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. for worship, fellowship, and study in God's word as we grow together in the love of God.
We are a congregation of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) in Lancaster County, PA. We desire to be the best disciples of Jesus we can be, walking together against our sins and encouraging each other in the new life God gives (Romans 6:12-14).
If you do not have a church home at this time, we invite you to consider making Reformation your place of regular worship and fellowship with Christians who are committed in their walk with Jesus. If you have questions about us, please call Pastor Luke Seamon at (717) 305-8796 or email him at email@example.com.
We meet at the Eastern Mennonite Mission, located at 53 West Brandt Boulevard in Salunga-Landisville, PA. We'd like to thank them for their gracious welcome to us, allowing us to use their facilities.


The statement was a formal response issued by the Vatican’s orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to a question about whether Catholic clergy are allowed to bless gay unions. The two-page response was approved by Pope Francis.
“It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage, as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex,” the statement said.
This position will surely disappoint many in the LGBTQ community, especially those who consider themselves part of the Catholic Church, as many had become hopeful in recent years that the Catholic Church might be more open to accepting gay marriage. This hope was in large part due to Pope Francis, who had previously told parents they should not condemn their kids just because they are gay and even voiced his support for civil unions for LGBTQ couples.
However, this statement makes it clear that the Pope still does not support the idea that marriage between two people of the same sex should be treated the same as a man and a woman. The statement makes a point of “rejecting all unjust discrimination” against gay people and says the answer “does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations” so long as they “live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching.”
But the statement also says that God “does not and cannot bless sin” in reference to homosexuality, declaring that “the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.”


Peter Lowe correspondence
Language of Materials
The Reverend Peter Lowe (1764-1818) was born in Esopus (now Kingston), New York. Lowe pursued his theological studies in New York City and, after completing his studies, accepted a call to serve as Collegiate Pastor over a combination of six churches in Kings County (Long Island). Lowe lived in Flatbush, now part of the Brooklyn borough of New York City. The collection contains correspondence to and from Lowe, principally with fellow clergymen. The subjects of the correspondence primarily include pleasantries and expressions of spirituality. There is some commentary on finding preaching positions, performing clerical duties and seeking to redeem sinners. In this connection, there is an unsent 1788 letter from Lowe in which he expresses frustration that his church will not allow African-Americans to become members; he details the objections of the members and his answers to those objections.
Biographical / Historical
The Reverend Peter Lowe was born on April 30th, 1764, in Esopus (now Kingston), New York, where he received his preparatory academic education. From an early age, Lowe displayed a propensity for serious study and a love of reading, particularly of the Holy Bible and other religious texts. He pursued his theological studies in the city of New York under the tutelage of the Reverend Dr. John Livingston, a prominent minister and theological scholar. Upon completing his studies at the age of twenty-four, Lowe accepted a call to serve as Collegiate Pastor over a combination of six churches in Kings County (Long Island), the locations being in Flatbush, Flatlands, Gravesend, New-Utrecht, Brooklyn, and Bushwick. Along with the Reverend Martin Schoonmaker, Lowe faithfully executed his pastoral duties for the next twenty-one years. Lowe lived with his wife and children in Flatbush, and when the union of the six churches was dissolved "by mutual consent, for the sake of a more frequent supply of the word and ordinances," Rev. Lowe continued to serve the parishes of Flatbush and Flatlands for another nine years, until his death from cancer in June of 1818. Unwavering as a man of faith, Lowe remained committed to serving his parish during his illness, even delivering his last sermon in his own sick room a few days before his death.
(Sources: Stiles, Henry R. A History of the City of Brooklyn, Volume I. Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1993; Vanpelt, Rev. P.I. A Discourse, Delivered on the 12th June, 1818, at the Funeral of the Rev. Peter Lowe, A.M. New York: Printed by Daniel Fanshaw, 1818.
The documents are arranged in alphabetical order by correspondent.
Scope and Contents
This collection contains correspondence to and from the Reverend Peter Lowe, Pastor of the Dutch Church of Flatbush. Many of the correspondents are fellow clergymen. The subjects of the correspondence principally include pleasantries and expressions of spirituality, especially in relation to dealing with difficulties, being favored with luck, matters of health or illness, and other fortunes or misfortunes of life. There is some commentary on finding preaching positions, performing clerical duties and seeking to redeem sinners. In this connection, there is an unsent 1788 letter from Lowe in which he expresses frustration that his church will not allow African-Americans to become members; he details the objections of the members and his answers to those objections.
Conditions Governing Access
Open to researchers without restriction.
Conditions Governing Use
The material is in the public domain.
Identification of item, date (if known); Peter Lowe correspondence, 1974.008, Box and Folder number; Brooklyn Historical Society.
Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Long Island Historical Society (now Brooklyn Historical Society) by Peter Lowe's daughter, Mrs. M.C. Tappan, 1864.
About this Guide
The collection was arranged and described in May 2005 by Jonathan W. Montgomery. Montgomery's finding aid was modified slightly in April 2012 by Larry Weimer to accommodate input to a collection management system, Archivists' Toolkit.


This is a wonderful opportunity for you to be involved in world-wide missions work right there from your own local church. If you are interested in your church actually doing missions work rather than just supporting it, then this may be exactly what you’re looking for.
For several years we have been working with churches who wanted to help by packing, and paying to ship boxes of our tracts to foreign countries. This program has been a tremendous success with some churches packing and shipping over one million gospel tracts all over the world. It has not only enabled us to do far more than we could have ever done alone, but has been a source of great blessing to those who are involved.
Due to our limited budget, Hope Tract Ministry of Bethel Baptist Church is unable to handle the great volume of requests we receive for our tracts. This is largely because of the shipping cost to foreign countries. We are asking the Lord to speak to the hearts of others to join in and help us as we take the Gospel of Jesus Christ into all the world through tracts.
There is nothing more exciting than to receive word back from someone in a foreign country who received Jesus Christ after reading one of the tracts that you sent them. We provide demonstrations to those beginning the program as well as an instruction manual. If you or your church are interested in learning more about the Satellite Program, give us a call at 803-684-1535.


In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, forms of evil function in thoroughly Augustinian terms: evil is characterized as a privation and/or perversion of good. (Excerpt from honors thesis)
A Biblical View of Animals: A Critical Response to the Theology of Andrew Linzey
Stephen M Vantassel
"Since Peter Singer's landmark work, Animal Liberation, was published in 1976, the issue of humanity's moral relationship to animals has become a hot topic. 1 Not surprisingly, Christians have begun to re-consider the issue of animal rights. 2 Christian Vegetarians, as they call themselves, have begun to proclaim their "humane" lifestyle as a logical extension of the redemption found in Christ. In light of the trends, I believe it is now necessary for the Church to investigate again what holy writ has to say about humanity's relationship to animals as it compares with so called "Christian Vegetarians and Christian Animal Rights Activists.""
Evangelical Theological Society
A Biblical Assessment of Andrew Linzey's View of Animal Rights
Stephen M Vantassel
Stephen M. Vantassel explores how Andrew Linzey's view of animal rights matches with the Biblical testimony. Vantassel explains that Dr. Linzey's position selects passages in an arbitrary and proof-texting manner thereby violating the original intent of the references. He also ignores passages that directly contradict his view resulting in a stilted and incomplete view of the Bible's theology on human-animal relations.
Animals Matter to God: Rediscovering Creation Guardianship
There are contemporary Christians for whom the subject of animals is important on ethical and theological grounds, just as there have been in the past. As a small step towards generating further positive discussion, we present this essay, but we acknowledge that what we say here is very cursory. It is a preliminary foray only and does not pretend to be comprehensive or to deal with all the serious issues related to human relations with animals. Activists and jurists who have been concerned with animal issues have sought, in part, to redress some problems by arguing for legislation, or even animal rights covenants, based on the juridical concept of guardianship for humans. Although the concept of guardianship is not a new one, what is new is how it has recently been developed beyond its traditional application to children and incompetents and extended to animals. So part of this discussion will delve into the history of law related to guardianship, before analysing the views of the three proponents of a legal guardianship model for animals. Later in the paper, a fourth view, which fits within the ambit of the legal guardianship model, but is not confined merely to the law, will be presented as the most expansive and generous of the views blending juridical and theological insights. The critical methodology of this discussion seeks to integrate critical perceptions from theology, analytic philosophy and jurisprudence. The discussion shall briefly examine the fundamental dilemma of defining and justifying rights. It is argued, inter alia, that rights as properly understood as titles implies relationships, which in turn points the inquiry to the transcendent. Then it will be argued that contemporary moral theories and philosophies of jurisprudence that seek to promote the cause of animals are unable to ultimately justify the grounds for inalienable rights for animals. In line with the insights of contemporary analytic philosophy, this discussion then highlights the need for a transcendental perspective, in which a transcendent-immanent Creator supplies the needed title for inalienable rights. Finally, the discussion proceeds to examine the classical Christian doctrines of creation, redemption and eschatology that provide the essential fulcrum for the theoretical content and praxis of inalienable rights for animals, especially the recovery of creation guardianship.
Reviews in Religion & Theology
The New Testament and Jewish Law: A Guide for the Perplexed – By James G. Crossley
Thomas Aquinas’s Eco-Theological Ethics of Anthropocentric Conservation
Ryan Patrick McLaughlin
This essay explores the much-debated question regarding the extent and viability of Thomas Aquinas as a theological source for expanding Christian ethical concern for the nonhuman creation, particularly nonhuman animals. This exploration focuses on the intersection of two foundational issues in Aquinas’ theological framework, nature and teleology, as well as the effects of this intersection in Aquinas’ work concerning nonhuman creation. From these examinations, I suggest that Aquinas can provide significant contributions for augmenting concern for the welfare of nonhuman animals because his theological framework demands that humans preserve the natural order through conservation. However, Aquinas’ ecotheological ethics of conservation is foundationally anthropocentric and only permits indirect moral concern for the nonhuman world.
Evidencing the Eschaton: Progressive-Transformative Animal Welfare in the Church Fathers
Ryan Patrick McLaughlin
The author aims to retrieve and develop creatively a strand of Christian thought, stretching from early Christian interpretations of biblical data through the hagiographies of the saints into modern Christian thought, which provides a foundation for concern over the welfare of nonhuman animals. To provide the framework for this strand, the author explores the theology of Irenaeus of Lyons and Ephrem the Syrian. First, he considers their positions regarding the place of nonhuman animals in protology and eschatology. Then, he notes their view that the created order is in via toward its eschatological consummation. With this framework in place, he turns to other voices in the Christian tradition, including the hagiographies of the saints, in order to further develop the framework. Ultimately, the author suggests that, within this particular strand of Christian thought, the further a human being progresses along the path of redemption, the more he or she ought to serve as a prolepsis of eschatological hope, which includes peaceful relationships between humans and animals.
The Black Church and Hip Hop Culture: Toward …
Rap Music as Prophetic Utterance
Union Seminary Quarterly Review
“Vegetarian as Evangelism,” Presented to the Boston Theological Institute [BTI], 2010 Boston Changing Contours of World Mission and Christianity, November 2010.
Among the major world religions, followers of Christ are the only ones who are at liberty to consume any food they desire. In contrast, Buddhists follows the principle of non-violence, and will not slaughter an animal. Jews and Muslims abstain from certain meats like pork, which are “unclean”. Hindus do not harm their sacred cows. Christianity is the only major world religion that does not have prescribed dietary regulations. Disregarding the cultural mores and sensibilities of other religions in this aspect of food consumption is a huge stumbling block for non-Christians to overcome. This paper overviews the rational behind aspects of vegetarianism in other religions, surveys the Biblical theology of abstaining from certain foods in Christianity, details true examples of missionaries who have or have not modified their eating habits to reach to those in need, and finally encourages a serious reconsideration for those missionaries- at home and abroad- who desire “people from all nations” to come to Christ.
John R Berkman
In light of the scriptural witness that humans and other animals share in the ultimate end, which God's peaceable kingdom, we thus believe that each and every creature is created to manifest God's glory. We argue that animals will not manifest God's glory insofar as their lives are measured in terms of human interests, but only insofar as their lives serve God's good pleasure. Similarly, humans manifest God's glory when we learn to see animals as God sees animals, recognizing that animals exist not to serve us, but rather for God's good pleasure. Our task is to try to show what difference it makes when one strives to discuss the relation between humans and other animals in a way that seeks to do justice to the integrity of theological discourse.


A SMALL EFFORT
FROM YOU MEANS
BIG RESULTS FOR THEM.
$6.18 a month could help make an eternal difference.
It’s less than the price of a movie ticket or a fast-food burger with fries, but its impact can change a life. Make a commitment of $6.18 a month to the Metro East Area Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and help athletes and coaches connect and grow in their sport as well as their faith in Jesus Christ.
We’re making it easy for you to support FCA in “the 618” with an easy monthly donation of $6.18. Chances are, you won’t even miss it – but we’ll put it to work training coaches, supporting campus ministries, and getting Bibles into the hands of students across the Metro East.
Serving students and coaches in seven counties across the Metro East, FCA exists to help students and coaches grow as athletes and grow their faith in Jesus Christ.