Nicholas Kristof and World Vision

Kristof has just written an excellent article favourable to faith-based organisations, HT John Hobbins. He mentions World Vision as a case in point,

World Vision now has 40,000 staff members in nearly 100 countries. That’s more staff members than CARE, Save the Children and the worldwide operations of the United States Agency for International Development — combined.

.....

Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensible networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.

There is a good reason why Kristof is free to praise World Vision. This organisation is unequivocal about woman's equal participation in decision-making. There is no mamby pamby about male hierarchy being just as good as equality from World Vision. World Vision is not afraid to step outside of the middle ground. No nonsense about promoting love patriarchy in Africa.

Those who believe that it is okay to deprive women of equal participation in decision-making, are at odds with World Vision and with Kristof, no matter how much they protest otherwise. Here is World Vision's statement on women,

• Create programmes and raise awareness among men and women to acknowledge and alleviate the burdens of women’s triple role in their home, workplace, and community, and promote women’s equal participation in decision-making.
• Enhance the social support system to enable women to work outside of the home by providing free/subsidised and good quality day-care centres for infants and elders.
• Governmental and international agencies, NGOs, employers, and trade unions must ensure equal rights and equal pay for all women.
• Women in leadership must be encouraged to build their capacity, confidence, assertiveness, and leadership skills while increasing the number of female staff who serve as role models. At the same time, men must be made aware of the shared benefits of gender equality, enabling them to relate to and work positively with empowered women.
• Furthermore, World Vision suggests partnership with social institutions such as churches, council of elders, community leaders and other sources of influence to remove barriers that prevent women from full participation.
• Educate men and women on shared gender roles that allow familial and social equity leading to households and societies where both genders have equal opportunities and access to resources and decision making.

If you don't encourage equal participation in decision-making for women then you can't agree with this statement. It is now time to stop pretending that you believe women have equal human dignity. You don't, even though you say that you do.

Rashi's "feminist" commentary

Maggie Anton, the author of Rashi's Daughters, blogged in November on Rashi's commentary for the first half of Genesis 3:16. she writes,

Finally we come to Gen 3:16, where Adam and Eve [and the snake] are punished. It seems to me that Rashi must have received input from his daughters when explaining Eve's penalty. He states that "multiplying her toil/sorrow" of childbearing refers to the burdens and worries that a mother, more so than the father, is subject to when raising children; her "pain in pregnancy" means the discomfort that pregnant women often experiences; while "anguish in childbearing" describes the painful birth pangs themselves.

So while it may go too far to describe Rashi's commentaries on Genesis as "feminist," for a man of the 11th Century, he appears to hold a more sympathetic view of women than other medieval theologians. Did his daughters influence him in this? I certainly hope so.

The one woman man

Peter Kirk has a good post on 1 Tim. 3;2, citing Bill Mounce. As Mounce puts it, this phrase means

if married, he would have (δει) to be a “one-woman" man.

Peter adds,

if male and married, he would have to be a “one-woman” man.

Read Peter's full post.

Deriving meaning from context

It is often said that we can derive the meaning of an unknown word from context. Here is Dr. Kostenberger on this,

While what you say is generally true, in the case of the use of didaskein and authentein in 1 Tim 2:12, in conjunction with oude, it does not appear that these verbs are of such a nature that they transparently and unequivocally convey a positive or negative connotation apart from consultation of the context and syntax of the passage.” Kostenberger BF, Nov. 30, 2008

And here is the Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought, page 123,

Language is a lever with which we can convey surprising facts, weird new ideas, unwelcome news, and other thoughts that a listener may be unprepared for. This leverage requires a rigid stick and a solid fulcrum, and that’s what the meaning of a sentence and the words and rules supporting them must be. If meanings could be freely reinterpreted in context, language would be a wet noodle and not up to the job of forcing new ideas into the minds of listeners.

And here is Baumann and Kameenui, Vocabulary Instruction: Resaerch to Practice, page 23,

We tested the effectiveness of the four types of contexts in helping readers derive meanings (Beck et al., 1983). The contexts consisted of stories from fourth- and sixth-grade basal readers in which we had blacked out the words recommended for attention, and our subjects were all adults. The results were as follows: directive, 86%; general, 49%; nondirective, 27%; misdirective 3%. What these results mean is that adults, reading stories for fourth and sixth graders, were able to identify meanings of words already in their vocabularies, slightly less than half the time.

And yet theologians have decided that they are certain enough about the meaning of some poorly known words to derive the teaching that women may only fill the subordinate role in the church and in the home. Piffle.

Male voices

John and Michael are two very strong voices on the subordination of women. For Michael it is assumed but nuanced. For John, it is definitely acceptable to assign the husband as tie-breaker.

If a couple disagree about every single thing including how the wife sneezes - all is good because, guess what, the husband is the tie-breaker. If you think I exaggerate, no I don't. Some men and women live this life, whether egal or comp, Christian or not. But Christians destroy the soul if they teach that God uniquely wants women to experience this kind of life. It is the spiritual skewer with which the woman is attacked that makes this kind of abuse a spiritual hell, and not just general misery available to all who marry, men or women.

But men will discuss the subordination of women forever. It hangs as the jewel in the firmament, the desire of the heart, and the longing for the female in surrender. What a testimony to the world that this is religion!

Marilyn's comment on John's blog is excellent,

I believe that we’re most alive and most truly ourselves when we love. In that sense, love liberates us, but it is also the ultimate loss of freedom. You can’t achieve an intimate marriage, for example, without some loss of independence. Intimacy is lost when decisions are unilateral or one spouse has no say in how the other spouse lives his or her life. In Biblical terms, my love for my husband flows out of my love for Christ. As II Corinthians 5:14 tells us, the love of Christ constrains us.

For a marriage to be healthy, both spouses must lose independence. If one party does all the giving or makes all of the sacrifices, the relationship will be exploitive. As Terri said, we’re all persons first. We all need limitations and constraints.

Placing the husband as tie breaker and final decision-maker opens the door to exploitation and loss of intimacy. For some women it will be rape and violence, for others the shutting down of parts of the brain and the dissassociation of mind from body.

I have to run. Please now go and read Kurk who lists the relevant posts.

Two for the road

The focus in the bibliosphere, for the past few months has been on debating with atheists and mythicists, and so on. But in the last few days, the gender debate has warmed up again both here and here. I happen to be quite busy at the moment and I don't think that I will be able to maintain an exchange of comments as I have done, although I will drop in on these conversations.

I disapprove of the subordination of women, and that's all I have to say on the matter right now.

those of us who were trained in the historical method

In one of the comments addressed to Paula, there is this comment,

those of us who were trained in the historical method

This needs to be addressed. Most of "those trained in the historical method," and most academic Greek experts employed in teaching classical Greek, and not seminary Greek, are of the opinion that Paul did not write either First or Second Timothy. Therefore, the premise is inaccurate.

Most of those trained in the historical method do not think that Paul wrote those verses which now serve as a restriction on women. Many do not believe that Paul wrote Ephesians, which is why it is called a "Pastoral" epistle and not a "Pauline" epistle. There is a growing consensus that 1 Cor. 14:35-36 is also not written by Paul.

I am not asking you to agree with these opinions. However, I want to mention that the "those of us" mentioned in the linked comment is a mirage.

Lexicons are out redux

In the discussion on Parchment and Pen, with regard to 1 Tim. 2:12, Michael says,

About the relationship between teaching and authority, I think you guys are entering into a classic case of “over-exegesis”! Semantic domains and relations and gramatical structures are certianly helpful, but the context is enough here. No need to jump into the type of diachronic lexical studies to understand that Paul see a relationship between the two. They are different aspect of the same thing: leadership in the church as Paul is talking about it.

So, if context is enough, why has Gen. 3:16b been translated in so many different ways,

your recourse (return) will be to your husband NETS

thou shalt be under thy husband's power Douay Rheims

thy lust shal pertayne vnto yi hußbande, Coverdale

thy desire shalbe subiect to thine husbande, Geneva Bible

thy desire shall be to thy husband KJV

You will want to control your husband, NET Bible

Context is very important, but it is not "enough." I know that Michael said that context is "enough here", but how do we know this for sure.

Roman Slaves

Here is an interesting comment,

On the basis of the golden rule, a strong case can be made, not against slavery as often practiced in Roman antiquity, but against slavery as often practiced in the antebellum South.

But slaves, at the time of the New Testament, could be flogged, mutilated and killed by their masters. They could not marry, could not come and go without permission, could not seek new employment, and could not be the legal parents of their children.

There were many slave uprisings in Rome, due to the excessive cruelty of the slave life. In the country slaves lived out their lives in chain, tatooed or branded, fed barely enough to survive. In the city some fortunate and educated slaves lived as members of the family in noble households.

Slaves were not of any particular ethnicity, but were usually victims of war. Some city slaves lived a life of privilege, but the vast majority lived a life of utmost misery. In fact, the punishment for a slave killing a master was that all slaves in the household would be killed. It seems that many slaves were tempted to kill their masters.

I cannot imagine how one could not make a strong case against slavery in late antiquity on the basis of the golden rule. And I cannot imagine how the subordination of women is not against the golden rule either.

Lexicons are out. It's official

John Hobbins, in a comment on this post, answers a query and writes,

I read the unit as grounding the prohibition of women from leading and teaching men in three ways: (1) the creation order; (2) the first sin of Eve being that of having been deceived; (3) the woman's assigned creation purpose being that of childbearing; as a practical matter, that would have been understood to be (and was, and to a certain extent still is) incompatible with the kind of commitment office-based (i.e., continuous) leadership involves.

But the BDAG has provides no meaning of Christian leadership for authenteo. Instead it says, to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to.

I hold these arguments of Paul in the "highest respect" but I freely admit that I do not understand this passage. However, I do know for a certainty that the usual interpretation of this passage cannot be constructed using what we now know about the verb authenteo. It is not respectful to simply ignore the lexicons and other scholarly research on this word authenteo.

More on Women in ministry

Doug Chaplin and Peter Kirk discuss the teaching of Carrie Sandom that women may not teach men. My stomach turned at this post. Waneta Dawn has taken on Bruce Ware again, and Cheryl and Journey have good posts.

It is not all that long ago that smoking was allowed in public places. But a disapproval of smoking has reduced the incidence of this unhealthy volitional habit. The subordination of women requires the same disapproval. As long as the majority shrug and allow the subordination of women to continue as an acceptable practice, it will continue. Men will not be ashamed to indoctrinate women into their own subordination.

Here is Michael Patton's definition of egalitarian, something which he wishes to see less of in the church.

Theological position held by many Christians (contra complementarianism) believing the Bible does not teach that women are in any sense, functionally or ontologically, subservient to men. Women and men hold positions in society, ministry, and the family according to their gifts, not their gender. The principle of mutual submission teaches that husbands and wives are to submit to each other equally. Prominent egalitarians include Doug Groothuis, Ruth Tucker, William Webb, Gorden Fee, and Linda Belleville.

I usually like a lot of Michael's writing, and I think many people do. Unfortunately that does not make his position just.

Patton and Hobbins on women and ministry

Here are Michael and John. Say what you like about hierarchy and authority. If you insist an assigning authority on the basis of gender, rather than on the basis of merit and morality, you are giving immorality the edge.

A God Given Power Imbalance?

Not long ago I wrote about my distress that Carolyn McCulley, who I have admiration for in some areas, had a speaking engagement in Vancouver. Women who assent to the subordination of women do not demonstrate that subordination is a good thing and acceptable to some women. No, they clearly demonstrate the fragility of the human mind, the susceptibility that we have to be indoctrinated in a false belief.

One of the authors which she endorses is Ken Sande who writes about the phrase "weaker vessel",

A third possibility is that the passage is warning husbands to be sensitive to the God-given power imbalance in marriage. By God’s design, husbands have greater authority, and wives have less. If a husband misuses his authority, it can frustrate and embitter his wife. If each of these implications is taken into account, this passage serves to warn a godly husband to value his wife highly, to be realistic about her capabilities and limitations, to guard against misusing his authority, and to will treat her with great tenderness, sensitivity, and respect.

So now God is a sadist who designed women to be weaker so some of them could receive the benevolence of their partners; and the rest, women both here and around the world, could experience rape and violence. Good for you, Mr. Sande. Depravity indeed!

It is true that women cannot compete with men in the Olympics, but women have other strengths. Women are different from men, but not weaker in an absolute sense. If women were really so weak, then some men would not have to waste so much bluster indoctrinating women into their own subordination.

Rashi, Pagnini, Zwingli and a woman's desire

One of the most discussed phrases in the Hebrew Bible, with reference to women, is "and thy desire shall be to thy husband," Gen. 3:16 KJV.

Some say that the Hebrew word translated here as "desire", really means "turning" and was interpreted as "desire" or "lust" because of the perversion of the rabbinical tradition. Katherine Bushnell, in God's Word to Women writes about teshuqa,

With such testimony as this before us (and we have quoted every ancient version we have been able to find, and none of importance, as likely to shed the least light on the meaning of this word are omitted from the list), we can see no justification for rendering this word "desire." Even the Babylonian Targum renders it "turning" in the second passage (Genesis 4:7), and thus lends its authority to this sense. Nothing but that rabbinic perversion and addition to the Scriptures, teaching that God pronounced ten curses on Eve (something that Scripture nowhere teaches) seems to be at the bottom of this extraordinary reading. A hint of such a meaning for teshuqa as "lust" seems to have crept into the Bible through Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. But even he did not give the sense "appetite" for the word as relates to Eve, but as to Abel; and further, even Jerome adds his authority, in his translation of the third passage, to the sense "turning," and for 3:16, in his writings.

After Wycliffe's version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: "Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis." What would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word "lust,"—and that is precisely what he does in the first and the third place; in the second, he translates, "appetite."

I would like to correct some of the inferences in this passage. It is true that the Septuagint translated teshuqa as "turning" and the Vulgate as "subject to." The meaning of "desire" was then introduced subsequent to Pagnini's Latin translation, which was based on the tradition which we find represented in Rashi's commentaries. But is "lust" an accurate representation of the rabbinical tradition or Pagnini's Latin?

First, let's look at the rabbinical tradition. Here is a translation of what Rashi wrote,

And to your husband will be your desire: for intimacy, but, nevertheless, you will not have the audacity to demand it of him with your mouth, but he will rule over you. Everything is from him and not from you. — [from Eruv. ad loc.]

your desire: Heb. שוקָת , your desire, like: (Ps. 107:9):“a yearning (שוֹקֵקָה ) soul.” - [after Targum Onkelos]

There is no indication here that Rashi wrote of teshuqa as "lust," but rather he compares it to the longing soul who is satisfied by God in Psalm 107:9.

Bushnell also states that Pagnini was responsible for translating teshuqa into Latin as "lust." In fact, Pagnini translated teshuqa as desiderium in Gen. 3:16 and as appetitus in Gen. 4:7. We have no way of knowing exactly what connotation Pagnini intended to attach to his translation of teshuqa. However, it is most likely that Pagnini intended this word to mean "longing" or "longing for intimacy" either emotional or physical.

Coverdale did translate teshuqa as "lust" and I simply do not know the reason for this. Coverdale says that he depended on four translations in producing his English Bible. These were the Vulgate, Pagnini, Tyndale and Zwingli's Zurich Bible. I can only express curiosity about whether Zwingli used the German word "lust" in the Zurich Bible, which would make relatively good sense.

So Rashi, Pagnini, or Zwingli? Who is responsible for Coverdale's use of the word "lust?" I don't know and I don't think that I have any way of finding out what was in the Zurich Bible. Help, anyone?

Here's to Valentine's Day, Rashi and Pagnini.

The Superbowl in the light of eternity?

C. J. Mahaney delivers another one of his rousing "How to watch the Superbowl" sermons. It is always delightful - especially to those of us who are completely out of touch with how to watch TV because we don't.

Working the remote requires skill and coordination as well as discernment. This person needs to be paying attention and anticipating commercial breaks. While everyone else enjoys the game, this person is working and always aware of what’s on the TV.

We need to make sure a room full of people are not simply passively watching the Super Bowl. Commercial time can be time redeemed with the right leadership and by a simply changing of the channel to C-SPAN.

Sometime after the game—that same evening or the next day—it’s helpful for a father to draw his child’s attention to the game in light of eternity. It’s also helpful for us as fathers to be reminded of an eternal perspective.

"My lovely wife ..."

Dave Warnock responds to Jack Bridget Myers by incisively pointing out the invisibility of the single woman in the complementarian framework. If a woman is not someone's "lovely wife" then who is she? Dave also refers to Adrian Warnock's comments on how women in the US are serving their Lord by supporting their husbands by being "honouring and submissive." Gack!!!!

Empathy and the law written in their hearts

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

¹⁵Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; Rom. 2:14,15 KJV

The Bible does not tell us that those who are without Christ do not have a sense of morality. On the contrary, it clearly states that the law is written in our hearts and that we can do "by nature" those things contained in the law. Both Christians and atheists have the same law written in their heart and may seek to follow this law of affection or empathy.

This is the basis of Roots of Empathy. The program makes no comment about religion one way or another, and I am not aware of it having any religious foundation; although many religious institutions have since recognized it as valuable.

The program is delivered through the public school system as well as private or separate schools, and has its origin in the Toronto District School Board.It is now found in most schools districts across Canada.

I heard the founder, Mary Gordon, speak when she came to Vancouver and introduced the program to our school district. Our school runs a Roots of Empathy program every year, and we have a mother and baby come in from our school community. Sometimes it is a teacher on maternity leave, or a parent, or a friend or relative of someone in the school.

The best way to access this program is to ask your school to research it and talk to other schools that have the program. It was introduced into the US in 2007 in Seattle. There is also a Seeds of Empathy program designed for other early childhood settings.

I have typically found that the atheists I know have as strong a sense of morality as the Christians I know. There are some differences in the sexual code, but otherwise it is similar. There is a growing understanding that empathy forms the basis of a moral code, and that this is written in our hearts by nature, as Paul wrote in Romans.

Christianity, therefore, is not about creating a moral code, but is a response to the fact that humans do not fulfill the moral code even though we know it by nature. Secular society has, to a certain extent, rejected religious teaching as a way to get people to fulfill the moral code and is seeking other avenues. Roots of Empathy is one of these avenues.

Roots of Empathy is found in secular and religious school districts, and I have not known it to make any reference, positive or negative, to any religion. I highly recommend it. Our school is well known for its empathy. Yes, we have several Christian teachers in our school, but some are professing atheists, and they are also leaders in showing commitment and empathy.

Bridget Jack Myers

She's smart and she is blogging. Clobberblog is her personal blog but she is also blogging for the CBE Scroll. She is collecting links. Thanks so much. My time for tending to my blog is limited right now.

Wired for Empathy

Christians often ask what the basis of morality is for those who do not adhere to a strict religious code. The answer, now stated more clearly than ever, is empathy. In our school, we have a program called the Roots of Empathy. Commenting on why history is typically composed of a record of calamities and crises, Jeremy Rifkin in Emphathetic Civilization, writes,

The everyday world is quite different. Although life as it's lived on the ground, close to home, is peppered with suffering, stresses, injustices, and foul play, it is, for the most part, lived out in hundreds of small acts of kindness and generosity. Comfort and compassion between people creates goodwill, establishes the bonds of sociality, and gives joy to people's lives. Much of our daily interaction with our fellow human beings is empathic because that is our core nature. Empathy is the very means by which we create social life and advance civilization. In short, it is the extraordinary evolution of empathic consciousness that is the quintessential underlying story of human history, even if it has not been given the serious attention it deserves by our historians.

Empathic distress is as old as our species and is traceable far back into our ancestral past, to our link with our primate relatives and, before them, our mammalian ancestors. It is only very recently, however, that biologists and cognitive scientists have begun to discover primitive behavioral manifestations of empathy throughout the mammalian kingdom, among animals that nurture their young. They report that primates, and especially humans, with our more developed neocortex, are particularly wired for empathy.

From The Huffington Post HT Joel.

Women in the World of the Earliest Christians

Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life by Lynn Cohick

From a question and answer with Cohick,

1. What are some misconceptions about women in the early Christian world?

One misconception is that women were not really part of the culture, that they were at home, uneducated, had their babies, worked their gardens, and that was it. What we find are very wealthy women who were patrons, doling out gifts and influencing senators. Only women were midwives or wet nurses, and there were women who were shopkeepers, heads of businesses, and lenders.

Some of the prominent women that I have blogged about are Eumachia, Phoebe, Paula, and Hilda. I am ashamed that some Christians continue to pretend that women are not designed to be breadwinners and patrons, protectors and providers. I do think women are better off married, but not because only men are designed to earn a living.

HT TC

Rashi's Daughters

Two excellent blurbs for the trilogy on Rashi's Daughters - here and here.

Changing the role of women in Jewish life is not exactly what author Maggie Anton had in mind when pursuing her passion of learning Talmud. However, making a positive impact on women all over the world is what she has done with her trilogy, “Rashi’s Daughters.”

Prior to becoming an acclaimed author, Anton was a scientific researcher. She started studying Talmud with women while in her 40s, and became fascinated with one of Judaism's greatest and most progressive scholars, Rabbi Salomon ben Isaac, better known as Rashi.

Her fascination with Rashi grew as she learned; he had no sons, so he taught Torah to his daughters: Joheved, Miriam, and Rachel. Ever the scientist, her curiosity turned to research, and her research turned to writing, and a trio of historical novels, “Rashi's Daughters” was born.

She will discuss her third and final book of the trilogy, “Rashi’s daughters III: Rachel” (Penguin, $15), at Beth El Ner Tamid Synagogue’s Sisterhood Donor Luncheon on Sunday, Feb. 7 at 12:30 p.m.

“My goal was to find out about his daughters and did he really teach them Torah?” Anton said in a recent telephone interview.

“The evidence shows women at the time did learn. They did blow the shofar as well as perform circumcisions. They also attended services and read from the Torah.”

Also, because women attended services, they were privy to knowledge, and often ran their own or their husband’s businesses, as many men at the time were traveling merchants, she said.

“It was not uncommon for women at the time to have real political power. There was a different attitude towards women. I was amazed at my findings and wondered why we didn’t know a great deal about this? Women today think we are the first generation to have women in positions of power, but it was happening back in Europe in the 11th century.”

In each of her novels, she explores the life of Rashi’s daughters. In “Rachel,” published in August 2009, she weaves love, the Talmud and sex scenes into a captivating novel.

Focusing on the youngest of the three learned sisters, the book is set during the time of the First Crusade, an extremely dangerous time for the Jewish people. Rachel must choose between the two men she loved — her father and her love of learning or her husband, which requires that she live in Spain, where women were hidden away at home and certainly didn't discuss Talmud.

Anton specifically became interested in studying Talmud because it was more or less off limits to women. She said, “Knowledge is power in Judaism and by knowing the law we can reclaim the power. We don’t have to accept what some may say is the law, we can see for ourselves. Studying Talmud gives you the power to interpret the law.”

She said, “In my books, I include Talmud study. I picked some of the most interesting and exciting areas that I believe most women will find stimulating. I also hope as women read my books, it will inspire them to also study Talmud.”

Cost for the luncheon is $20 for Sisterhood members, $25 for non-members. Books will be available for purchase and signing. For more information or to register, call the synagogue at 262-242-6900.

Masada Siegel lives in Scottsdale, Ariz. She can be reached at Fungirlcorrespondent@gmail.com

HT PaleoJudaica.com

Not For Women Only

Claude Mariottini announces,

On Friday, April 23, 2010, the faculty of Northern Seminary are sponsoring a panel discussion entitled, "Not for Women Only: Affirming the Equal Calling of Women and Men to the Ministry of the Gospel." The event is scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at 9:00 p.m.

There is tension in scripture regarding the relationship of gender and ministry and all are invited to come and learn how others with a high view of scripture navigate these important questions.

Through panel discussion and the fielding of audience questions, members of Northern's faculty will 1) Present their own journeys toward supporting the equal partnership of males and females in church ministry and 2) Respond earnestly to audience questions.

Faculty participating in the discussion include: Jeff Hubing, Claude Mariottini, Ricky Freeman, Alistair Brown, Charlie Cosgrove, and Tracy Smith Malone.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary