I think that we really get into trouble when questioning the cannonization of the Bible. The reason is if there were imperical motivation in what gets placed in and left out, then how can we even believe that this word is true. The God that created the universe can keep a book in tact the way He likes quite easily.

The Gospel of Christ is truely revolutionary but past and current exegetical methods used to bring it’s fullness to life have not always been correct. Mary of Magdala was not a prostitute, and I agree with King and applaud her for bringing this to a further light. Not only has this view of Mary of Magdala been used to suppress women, it takes away from the fullness of Christ minstry. Wasn’t a woman the first to preach the gospel? The fact that Mary was the first to proclaim the news of the risen Lord goes into how countercultural the gospel really was, and currently still is.

It’s an interesting thing that Aaron writes he said, ” Will the West be revolutionized because the sacred holds merit once again”. The West is definantly in a transition stage, but I don’t feel that it is transitioning to the sacred. There is vast spirituality, but not sacredness, more like the profane. Wicca is an example of a prominant emerging belief system, but this is a terrible thing. It seems like the christian faith has gone to the global south, and to the east. Is this possibly so the west (America, France, Britain, etc.) can get the judgment that’s due everynation?

Hugo of St. Victor is quoted as saying, “…The tender soul has fixed his love on one spot in the world; the strong man has extended his love to all places; the perfect man has extinguished his.” (442) This is is a hella of a quote to describe how a true exile is suppose to be. This quote tears down the need for nationalism in the context that we understand it. As for the church in exile I believe this fits right in with this philosphy. By not having national borders that we “worship” we can view the world in a way that it is to be viewed, from a kingsom standpoint, and not a nationalistic one.

When bringing awareness in a church setting as the first step towards building a community, it would seem like outside evaluation would be helpful. Most churches look like their community, with this said it seems as if there could be things that go unnoticed by the church. Unnoticed because a lot of times when bringing awareness about people who look like you, it is easier to overlook things. So maybe people from outside of your representative community could help bring awareness about issues that community needs addressed, and ways that the church could go about doing that.

This article deals with the aspect of diaspora and how a people keep the identity of their homeland. For a people group to understand themselves, especially in diaspora, they need to understand their past. By understanding their past they will maintain their cultural indicaters, and in a sense keep their identity. I think this is similar to the philosophy of “church in exile”. The church in exile, or diaspora, needs to understand its origins and its philosphies so they will act accordingly while in diaspora. For believers that are in diaspora in America this would mean really taking back the communial aspect of our lives, and rejecting the individualistic notions. While in diaspora we can still be a communal body, it is even more important while in diaspora then while in our homeland. Since our homeland is in Heaven, than on earth we are in a perpetual state of diaspora, meaning we need to stay in a perpetual state of community.

With today’s class exercise I realized that my church, while being a charasmatic church, does not operate like your typical charasmatic church. More than this, we are not open to the audience involvment in church service. What I mean is, there is rarely an exhortation or testimony from the audience, and information is dispensed through only three people. I don’t believe this is because of some negative control issues, but nevertheless it is taking place. I hopr this class can give me the tools to fill in some of the voids at my church.

I agree with Kyle wholeheartedly concerning this article. I will be totally honest, I have an issue with femenist interperetation of the Bible. It seems as if there is som much that is imposed on the text in order to prove a femenist approach. The majority of female writers that I have read all interperet scripture through a lense that sees women oppressed. I like that female auhtors give a voice to the women in the scriptures because often they are overlooked. However, I usually disagree with the anaylsis, and also the end product that results from femenist interpertation.

What was talked about today is a topic that is touchy and possibly offensive. In my opinion this makes it all the more reason to engage it. The role of nationalism in faith could be confusing. It is my take that nationalism should have a limited role in faith, if that at all. Nationalism by nature creates the “other” complex within a people. The church should never operate within this “other” mindset, all it produces are broken bridges that could have been used for ministry. The issue to for the western Church, is that it is much more western than christian. This is due to the myths that the west has bought into in reference to themeselves, and in relation to other people.

The conversation about the emerging churches is something that I enjoy. It’s a good way to see how church movements are birthed, in particularly how they are birthed in “unconventional” ways. The Church living communal lives is the best way to be an example to the world. It’s interesting because the churches that I am used to going to, usually in poorer areas tend to already have this communal aspect in place. The higher up the economic chain you go I think the more difficult is to find these communities, only because of how “successfull” people buy into the concept of the individual over the community.