MetaCatholic

Catching up on the blogs after a couple of days at a conference, there are a few posts that have caught my eye.

Michael Bird has a questioning post about Pauline equality and inclusion in Gal 3:28. If this was indeed a simple “neither … nor” (οὐκ … οὐδὲ) then I think the case for a new identity that embraces the old one would be stronger. The problem is of course the last in the sequence “not male and female” (οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ). Given the Genesis echo, and in the light of what Paul says elsewhere about new creation, I think it is hard to avoid a transforming and transcending of identity, if not a negating.

The possibility of a fight between James Crossley and Jim West over the study of reception history of the Bible as the future of biblical studies. One question it seems to me James doesn’t address, but which might in some ways be the most interesting is how the study of the reception of biblical texts might / could / should be influenced by the ways in which the one doing the study receives the texts. But I disagree with Jim that “Historical Theology” is simply reception history. They’re related, not coterminous, even in Protestantism.

Probably for Anglicans only, and then again only for those of somewhat obsessive-compulsive anorak tendencies comes this listing of bishops’ blogs for the Lambeth Conference (HT Targuman)

I’m baffled by the way in which the subordination of women seems to be becoming a renewed tenet of some forms of evangelical orthodoxy as ideas from the Us culture wars cross the pond. See this post by Dave Warnock. In the name of taking a “biblical” position on women, the frankly appalling Mark Driscoll (see this post) is very clear that family must come before church. As Jesus said. Not.

The Times’ Faith Central tells you something you probably didn’t know about John Lennon, not least his religious confusion. The interview begins about 23 minutes in. This link will not be live long.