Admiration

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 117 of 288 · 20 per page

• From Branded: Brainwashed Inside NXIVM (2020)

  One of those employees, 28-year-old Toni Natalie, becomes the company's top seller out of Rochester, New York. [Dr. Joseph] Toni is completely enamored by Keith. She falls for his charms. He makes her feel special. [Narrator] In 1992, Natalie leaves her husband to move to Clifton Park to be closer to company headquarters... and her new lover, Raniere. [Dr. Marie] They were a dynamic couple. She just seemed to really have her act together and be confident. Keith could make you feel like the most important person in the world. And...the women around him just loved him. He had something magical about him. [Narrator] But it's not just Raniere's romantic life that's thriving. Between 1990 and 1992, Consumer Buyline's gross receipts ballooned from $200,000 to 35 million. But like everything with Raniere, it's all just smoke and mirrors. When these people become affiliates, what are they going to do on the average? -[unintelligible] -Right. They're going to at least, at least, at least do this. [Paige] It became pretty apparent that Consumer Buyline was more about selling those memberships than actually bulk buying. It's going to perpetuate, right. It's going to go and go, 'cause on the average, this works. They were selling the opportunity to sell Consumer Buyline. And you can only do that so many times before you run out of people to sell that to. The math just does not work out, ever. [Armando] The longer that it went on, the less sustainable that it became. And suddenly you have all these government organizations breathing down your neck, investigating where's this money actually going. [Narrator] Raniere knows his scam's been exposed and cuts an astounding deal to save himself. [Armando] In the fall of 1996, Keith and Consumer Buyline settled out of court for approximately $40,000. He had defrauded all of these people, and he didn't even have to admit that he was wrong. [Dr. Joseph] Raniere was a businessman. He's gonna come back, and he's gonna try to do this again. It's a part of his genetic makeup. [Narrator] It's just another step in Raniere's meteoric rise from alleged child prodigy to renowned ladies' man to conniving entrepreneur, laying the foundation for his greatest scheme yet. In 1997, a 37-year-old Raniere and his girlfriend, Toni Natalie, pivot to their next moneymaking venture-- National Health Network, a health products store. [Paige] National Health Network is right in line with Consumer Buyline. Honestly, he learned one trick and then was like, let's do it again-- this time, with supplements. And there's a lot of multilevel marketing schemes centered around supplements. [Narrator] But Raniere has bigger aspirations. Later that year, he meets the woman who he thinks can help bring them to fruition when 43-year-old Nancy Salzman walks into his store seeking help. Salzman comes in looking for a natural remedy for a stomach issue. Apparently, she's so constipated, that she's looking for any solution to solve this issue. And that's when she gets to meet Keith.

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  97Lecture 10—Eastern Orthodoxy: From Byzantium to Russia SAINTS õIn Russia, the Orthodox Church and the state worked together to recognize local holy men as national saints and fund the building of new churches and monasteries to cement the loyalty of far-f lung villages. But sometimes saints developed huge followings on their own, whether the authorities approved or not. õThese saints often lived lives of radical sacrifice. They show how the spirituality of the monastery found its way into ordinary life, especially in the form of strange, charismatic characters known as holy fools. õA holy fool was a person who rejected the comforts and standards of ordinary society in an outrageous way, perhaps by wandering around without clothes in the dead of winter, or standing in a town square and mocking aristocrats as they passed by. The point was to compel bystanders to question their own assumptions and priorities, and to ref lect on the ways that Christ himself was a holy fool in 1 st -century Palestine. õOne notable holy fool is Xenia of St. Petersburg, who was born in the 18 th century to a wealthy family. She married a colonel in the Russian army, but he died suddenly and left her a widow when she was only 26. Most Russian women of her social rank would have immediately remarried and carried on with a life of frequent teas and balls and evenings at the theater. õInstead, Xenia started selling off her husband’s estate and all her belongings to raise money to give to the poor. She saved his military uniform and developed the odd habit of putting it on and wandering the streets of St. Petersburg, living as a homeless person and speaking to anyone who would listen about Christ. Her family was so alarmed they hauled her into a hospital to have her head examined, but the doctors found her mentally sound. 98The History of Christianity II õShe spent the rest of her life—nearly 50 years—living and preaching on the streets, alternately mocked as a crazy woman and venerated as a fool for Christ. After she died, her grave became a shrine. Pilgrims f locked to her grave to pray for miracles. Xenia was a saint long before the church got around to officially canonizing her in 1988. SUGGESTED READING Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox. L ossk y, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Shevzov, Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. Wa re , The Orthodox Church. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER äWhat was at stake in Eastern and Western Christians’ debates over theology? Why couldn’t they just agree to disagree? äHow does the Orthodox Christianity we find in creeds and theology books compare to the faith as believers have actually experienced it? äDespite the interest of some American evangelicals, Orthodox Christianity has won relatively few converts in the West. What might explain this?

• From In the Dream House (2019)

  Laura looked like an old-fashioned movie star: wide-eyed and ethereal. She was dry and disdainful and wickedly funny; she wrote poetry and was pursuing a degree in library science. She felt like a librarian, like the wise conduit for public knowledge, as if she could lead you anywhere you needed to be. John, on the other hand, looked like a grunge rocker-cum-offbeat-professor who’d discovered God. He made kimchi and sauerkraut in huge mason jars he monitored on the kitchen counter like a mad botanist; he once spent an hour describing the plot of Against Nature to me in exquisite detail, including his favorite scene, in which the eccentric and vile antihero encrusts a tortoise’s shell with exotic jewels and the poor creature, “unable to support the dazzling luxury imposed on it,” dies from the weight. When I first met John, he said to me, “I got a tattoo, do you want to see?” And I said, “Yes,” and he said, “Okay, it’s gonna look like I’m showing you my junk but I’m not, I swear,” and when he lifted the leg of his shorts high on his thigh there was a stick-and-poke tattoo of an upside-down church. “Is that an upside-down church?” I asked, and he smiled and wiggled his eyebrows—not lasciviously, but with genuine mischief—and said, “Upside down according to who?” Once, when Laura came out of their bedroom in cutoffs and a bikini top, John looked at her with real, uncomplicated love and said, “Girl, I want to dig you a watering hole.” Like a picara, I have spent my adulthood bopping from city to city, acquiring kindred spirits at every stop; a group of guardians who have taken good care of me (a tender of guardians, a dearheart of guardians). My friend Amanda from college, my roommate and housemate until I was twenty-two, whose sharp and logical mind, flat affect, and dry sense of humor witnessed my evolution from messy teenager to messy semiadult. Anne—a rugby player with dyed-pink hair, the first vegetarian and lesbian I ever met—who’d overseen my coming-out like a benevolent gay goddess. Leslie, who coached me through my first bad breakup with brie and two-dollar bottles of wine and time with her animals, including a stocky brown pit bull named Molly who would lick my face until I dissolved into hysterics. Everyone who ever read and commented on my LiveJournal, which I dutifully kept from ages fifteen to twenty-five, spilling my guts to a motley crew of poets, queer weirdos, programmers, RPG buffs, and fanfic writers. John and Laura were like that. They were always there, intimate with each other in one way and intimate with me in another, as if I were a beloved sibling. They weren’t watching over me, exactly; they were the protagonists of their own stories. But this story? This one’s mine.

• From Paul and Matthew Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Terence L. Donaldson (2021)

  In the spirit of friendship and respect for a great scholar and a genuine caring human being, I, alongside other colleagues and friends, present this Festschrift to Professor Terry Donaldson with respect and admiration. I also want to thank his wife, Lois, and his adult children Graeme, Meredith, and David. Tabula Gratulatoria Robert Derrenbacker Stephen Chambers John Kampen John W. Marshal Richard S. Ascough Mark Nanos Edith Humphrey Paula Fredriksen Margaret Y. MacDonald John S. Kloppenborg Philip A. Harland Harry O. Maier Colleen Shantz Cecilia Wassen Peter Richardson Bradley H. McLean Bruce W. Longenecker Richard N. Longenecker Michael Knowles Don Garlington Catherine Jones Ho Jin Nam Murray Baker Joan Campbel John Bertone Luke Amoussou Robert Jewett Steve Notley N. T. Wright 6 6 7 Part One Paul 8 9 1 Paul without Judaism: Historical Method over Perspective Steve Mason Looking back on Pauline research in the last decades there is one trend which is general y accepted in international scholarship, namely that Paul is a Jew, and that he must be understood on the background of Judaism and the O.T. Johannes Munck1 A nomenclature which is thrust upon the past will always end by distorting it, whether by design or simply as a consequence of equating its categories with our own, raised, for the moment, to the level of the eternal. There is no reasonable attitude toward such labels except to eliminate them. Marc Bloch2 When I left a chair in ancient history to take up a New Testament (NT) post (2011), my world changed in many ways. What struck me most about the graduate-student cadre in the new setting was their fascination with “the new perspective on Paul” (hereafter NP). This impressed me, first, because the “new” perspective was older than most of them. Second, it seemed a tiny boat, lashed to the already small ship of Paul’s corpus, for so many researchers. Third, most seemed at least as concerned about alignment with a Paul-guru or theological tradition as with the open-ended project of understanding the historical Paul. This last impression was strengthened during research for an SBL panel on part of N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2013).3 I found the internet heaving with debates about whether Wright’s Paul fit the NP and, more earnestly, whether Wright was sound in relation to a theological standard. Any distinction between Wright’s own theology and that of Wright’s Paul was hard to detect. I could not help thinking: “Some of you say I belong to Sanders, 1 Johannes Munck, “Pauline Research since Schweitzer,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed. J. Philip Hyatt; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1965), 166–77 (174). 2 March Bloch, The Historian’s Craft (trans. P. Putnam; New York, NY: Vintage, 1953 [manuscript ca. 1943]). 3 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London: SPCK, 2013). 10 10 Paul and Matthew among Jews and Gentiles some to Dunn, some to Wright, some to Campbell (Douglas or William). What about me, Paul?”

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  ambivalence and mistrust, we have not changed as much as we think. Throughout history, however, certain notable leaders have been able to erect a bulwark against this volatility, to earn a type of solid respect and support that allowed them to accomplish great things over time. We think of Moses, or the ancient Indian emperor Asoka, or Pericles (see chapter 1), or the Roman general Scipio Africanus, or Queen Elizabeth I. In more modern times we can think of Abraham Lincoln, or Martin Luther King Jr., or Warren Buffett, or Angela Merkel, or Steve Jobs. We shall call such power authority , reverting to the original significance of the word, which comes from the Latin auctoritas , the root meaning “to increase or augment.” To the ancient Romans, those who had founded their republic possessed tremendous wisdom. Their ancestors had demonstrated this wisdom by how strong and long-lasting were the institutions they had established, and how they had transformed their provincial town into the preeminent power in the known world. To the extent that Roman senators and leaders returned to this basic wisdom and embodied the ideals of the founders, they had authority —an augmented presence, an increased prestige and credibility. Such leaders did not have to resort to speeches or to force. Roman citizens willingly followed their lead and accepted their ideas or advice. Their every word and deed seemed to carry extra weight. This gave them greater leeway in making hard decisions; they were not judged merely by their latest success. The Romans were notoriously fractious and mistrustful of those in power. Their politics could easily descend into civil war, which in fact happened on several occasions. Having leaders who exuded authority was a way to control this combativeness, to get things done, to maintain a degree of unity. And it required that such leaders embody the highest of ideals, ones that transcended the pettiness of daily political life. This Roman model, which represents an adherence to a higher purpose, remains the essential ingredient for all true forms of authority. And this is how we must operate if we wish to establish such authority in the world today. First and foremost, we must understand the fundamental task of any leader—to provide a far-reaching vision, to see the global picture, to work for the greater good of the group and maintain its unity. That is what people crave in their leaders. We have to avoid ever seeming petty, self-serving, or indecisive. Showing signs of that will stir up the ambivalence. Focusing on the future and the larger picture should consume much of our thinking. Based on this vision, we must set practical goals and guide the group toward them. We need to become masters of this visionary process through practice and experience. Attaining such mastery will give us tremendous confidence in ourselves, as opposed to the fake confidence of those

• From In an Unspoken Voice (2010)

  Title : In an Unspoken Voice Author: Levine PhD, Peter A. Further praise for In an Unspoken Voice “Peter Levine’s first book, Waking the Tiger, changed the world of trauma treatment: somatic therapy, specifically Somatic Experiencing®, the name of the specific approach he developed, no longer alternative fringe practice, became a major player in the world of the mainstream psychotherapies. Like an anthropologist acquainting us with a different culture that he has made his own, Levine, in his new book, In an Unspoken Voice, systematically and engagingly initiates us into the ways of the body and the nervous system that animates it: how it works, what makes it tick, how to make friends with it, how to understand it, how to communicate with it and, last but not least, how to treat it and release it (and with it, us) from the hold of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). No longer unspoken, all that is held in the body—in trauma and in health, in psychosomatic illness and in resilience—is described, articulated and made coherent. The result is a masterful, fluent book that seamlessly moves between evolution, science, Polyvagal theory, mind-body practice, impassioned defense of our animal natures, self-disclosure and specific step-by-step guide to treating trauma and restoring resilience. It is erudite, it is impassioned, it is learned and it is accessible.” —Diana Fosha, PhD, director of The AEDP Institute, co-editor of The Healing Power of Emotion: Affective Neuroscience, Development and Clinical Practice and author of The Transforming Power of Affect: A Model for Accelerated Change “To be traumatized is to be condemned to endless repetitions of unbearable experiences. In this beautifully written and engrossing book, Peter Levine explains how trauma affects our body and mind and demonstrates how to call upon the wisdom of our bodies to overcome and transform it. The accounts of his personal and therapeutic experiences, integrated with the essentials of the sciences of trauma and healing, are highly informative and inspiring. His distinctive voice should be widely heard by survivors, clinicians and scientists.” —Onno van der Hart, PhD, Honorary Professor of the Psychopathology of Chronic Trauma, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, and coauthor of The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation of the Personality “Like a wise old weaver Peter Levine painstakingly blends together strands of many dense colors into ever-fresh patterns emerging from his honed intelligence and fertile imagination. These strands comprise careful reflections on his own personal healing, his work with others, insights from studies with animals, different views from indigenous peoples here and elsewhere, various scientists exploring the biologies of the body, spiritual practices in many traditions and whatever else passes in front of his sparkling eyes. His first (and now iconic) book, Waking the Tiger, is now part of the canon for the education of therapists. This major new book is a welcome landmark in his long history of creating an intricate tapestry of Somatic theory and practice.”

• From Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality (2007)

  But none of that is what this text is all about. The husband’s waiting for the wife to submit is actually a failure to lead. He thinks he’s the strong leader, but he’s actually weak and misguided. If he really thinks he’s the head, then he would surrender his desires and wants and plans. He would die to his need to be in control and do whatever it takes to serve her, to make sure she has everything she needs. He would die to himself so that she could live. He would lay down his life for her, like Jesus laid down his life for the church. This is submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. How would she respond if it were crystal clear to her that her husband was placing her needs ahead of his own? What if he had a habit of this? What if she knew without a shadow of a doubt that his love for her was so great that he would give his life for her in the blink of an eye? There are those who say, “Well, yes, that’s nice now and then, but what about the tough decisions? What happens when push comes to shove and somebody has to call the shots and make the tough decisions? What then?” I’ve actually had this encounter several times with men after I’ve taught on the man dying for the woman. It’s interesting how emotional men get when this verse is talked about. And “push comes to shove” is probably not the best way to frame the question . . . Think about your friendships, the closest ones, the ones that have gone the distance. How often do you ask who is in charge? Do you ever find yourself questioning, “Where does the buck stop?” No, it’s not even on the radar. Over time you’ve built up reserves of trust and love, and power and control become irrelevant. The healthier and more whole a marriage relationship is, the less you ask these kinds of questions. When people are truly living in what’s called “mutual submission,” you lose track of who’s in charge. In a marriage, you’re talking about power and control only when something central to the whole relationship has fallen apart. And once again, poetry comes to our rescue. The woman says in Song of Songs, “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine.”4 Which Is It?

• From Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away (2022)

  The same grit that helped Ali become such a great champion—admired and revered almost without equal—became his undoing when it drove him to ignore signs that were obvious to anyone on the outside looking in that he should quit. That’s the funny thing about grit. While grit can get you to stick to hard things that are worthwhile, grit can also get you to stick to hard things that are no longer worthwhile. The trick is in figuring out the difference. Grit vs. QuitWe view grit and quit as opposing forces. After all, you either persevere or you abandon course. You can’t do both at the same time, and in the battle between the two, quitting has clearly lost. While grit is a virtue, quitting is a vice. The advice of legendarily successful people is often boiled down to the same message: Stick to things and you will succeed. As Thomas Edison said, “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.” Soccer legend Abby Wambach echoed this sentiment over a century later when she said, “You must not only have competitiveness but ability, regardless of the circumstance you face, to never quit.” Similar inspirational advice is attributed to other great sports champions and coaches, such as Babe Ruth, Vince Lombardi, Bear Bryant, Jack Nicklaus, Mike Ditka, Walter Payton, Joe Montana, and Billie Jean King. You can also find almost identical quotes from other legendary business successes through the ages, from Conrad Hilton to Ted Turner to Richard Branson. All these famous people, and countless others, have united behind variations of the expression “Quitters never win, and winners never quit.” It is rare to find any popular quote in favor of quitting except one attributed to W. C. Fields: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no use being a damn fool about it.” Fields was hardly a role model, creating a public persona out of characters who loved drinking, hated children and dogs, and eked out an existence on the fringes of society. That’s not much of a counterbalance . . . and Fields didn’t actually say it! By definition, anybody who has succeeded at something has stuck with it. That’s a statement of fact, always true in hindsight. But that doesn’t mean that the inverse is true, that if you stick to something, you will succeed at it. Prospectively, it’s neither true nor good advice. In fact, sometimes it’s downright destructive. If you are a bad singer, it doesn’t matter how long you stick with it. You’re not going to be Adele. If you are fifty years old and set your sights on becoming an Olympic gymnast, no amount of grit or effort will make it possible for you to succeed.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. As the proof of the husbandman’s industry lies in the abundance of his crop, so the fulness of the Church is the evidence of an industrious teacher; so it is here said, And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. No one was deterred by the toilsomeness of the journey, for spiritual love feels no fatigue; no one was kept away by the thought of sufferings, for they were going into possession of the kingdom of heaven. For he who has in very deed tasted the reality of heavenly good, has nothing to attach him to earth. In good season these blind men come before Christ, that having their eyes opened, they may go up with Him to Jerusalem as witnesses to His power. They heard the sound of the passers by, but saw not their persons, and having nothing free about them but their voice, because they could not follow Him with their feet, they pursued Him with their voice; When they heard that Jesus passed by, they cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David. AUGUSTINE. (de Cons. Ev. ii. 65.) Mark relates this miracle, but speaks of only one blind man. This difficulty is thus explained; of the two blind men whom Matthew has introduced, one was well known in that city, as appears by Mark’s mentioning both his name, and that of his father. (Mark 10:46.) Bartimæus the son of Timæus was well known as having sunk from great affluence, and now sitting not only blind, but a beggar. For this reason then it is that Mark chose to mention him alone, because the restoration of his sight procured fame to the miracle, in proportion to the notoriety of the fact of his blindness. Though what Luke relates was done after the same manner, yet his account is to be taken of another though similar miracle. (Luke 18:35.) That which he gives was done as they drew near to Jericho; this in the other two as they came out of Jericho. And the multitude rebuked them that they should hold their peace. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. For they saw how mean their clothes, and considered not how pure their consciences. See the foolish wisdom of men! They think great men are hurt when they receive the homage of the poor. What poor man dare salute a rich man in public? HILARY. Or, They bid them hold their peace, not from reverence for Christ, but because they were grieved to hear from the blind what they denied, namely, that the Lord was the Son of David. ORIGEN. Or; Those that believed rebuked them that they should not dishonour Him by styling Him merely Son of David, but should rather say, Son of God, have mercy on us.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AUGUSTINE. (in Verb. Dom.) Let us recollect the Old Testament account. Jacob saw in a dream a ladder reaching from earth to heaven; the Lord resting upon it, and the angels ascending and descending upon it. Lastly, Jacob himself understanding what the vision meant, set up a stone, and poured oil upon it. (Gen. 28:12.) When he anointed the stone, did he make an idol? No: he only set up a symbol, not an object of worship. Thou seest here the anointing; see the Anointed also. He is the stone which the builders refused. If Jacob, who was named Israel, saw the ladder, and Nathanael was an Israelite indeed, there was a fitness in our Lord telling him Jacob’s dream; as if he said, Whose name thou art called by, his dream hath appeared unto thee: for thou shalt see the heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. If they descend upon Him, and ascend to Him, then He is both up above and here below at the same time; above in Himself, below in His members. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. vii. in Joan. c. 23) Good preachers, however, who preach Christ, are as angels of God; i. e. they ascend and descend upon the Son of man; as Paul, who ascended to the third heaven, and descended so far even as to give milk to babes. He saith, We shall see greater things than these: (2 Cor. 12:2. 1 Cor. 3:2) because it is a greater thing that our Lord has justified us, whom He hath called, than that He saw us lying under the shadow of death. For had we remained where He saw us, what profit would it have been? (c. 17.). It is asked why Nathanael, to whom our Lord bears such testimony, is not found among the twelve Apostles. We may believe, however, that it was because he was so learned, and versed in the law, that our Lord had not put him among the disciples. He chose the foolish, to confound the world. Intending to break the neck of the proud, He sought not to gain the fisherman through the orator, but by the fisherman the emperor. The great Cyprian was an orator; but Peter was a fisherman before him; and through him not only the orator, but the emperor, believed. CHAPTER 2 2:1–41. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. xxi. [al. xx.] 1) Our Lord being known in Galilee, they invite Him to a marriage: And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee.

• From Reading the Bible from the Margins (2002)

  Furthermore, these two sisters are portrayed in the Gospel of John as well-known apostolic figures of the early church who were beloved by Christ (11:5). Parallel to Peter's confession of Jesus’ messiahship (Matt. 16:15–19), Martha also served as a spokesperson for the early church according to John 11:27. Additionally, through Mary's evangelism, many came to believe in Jesus (John 11:45).19 These women were hearers, servers, and proclaimers of the word. Let's now reread the story through the eyes of women. The rabbi Jesus was received in the home of one of his apostles named Martha, who also served as founder and deacon of the house-church in Bethany where she proclaimed God's word. On this day her sister Mary the evangelist sat at the feet of Jesus to study Torah. Martha asked the rabbi to have his student help with the duties required by the deacon, but the rabbi responded that studying Torah was just as important as serving. The radicalness of this narrative affirms leadership positions assumed by women during Jesus’ earthly ministries, even though it was considered blasphemous by the more legalistic religious leaders of his time. Such a reading should not lead the reader to assume that Christianity's treatment of women was more liberating than the Jewish treatment of women, only that Jesus’ actions attempted to dismantle patriarchal structures. However, the men who led the post-Pentecost Christian church were quick to forget Jesus’ example and reverted to patriarchal models. Regardless of how we interpret Jesus’ solidarity with women, for several feminists, as long as Christ remains a male, it is difficult for women to find a Savior who has experienced the trials and tribulations distinctive to women. What then does it mean to have a female Christ? This does not imply an androgynous Christ, for Jesus was born male, with masculine sexual organs. What is meant by a female Christ is that he was symbolically female. In the same way that we can talk about an economically marginalized Christ, a Hispanic Christ, an Amerindian Christ, an Asian American Christ, and a black Christ, we can also talk about a female Christ. But is Jesus’ symbolic femaleness enough? For some feminist theologians, like Mary Daly, the maleness attached to Jesus makes the problem of finding salvation in a male Savior overwhelming.20 Other feminist scholars, like Rosemary Ruether, insist that in spite of Jesus’ male gender, he stood against all forms of hierarchal systems that privileged one group at the expense of another. These systems include patriarchal structures.21 Because Jesus continues to be incarnated among “the least of my people,” Jesus is a woman. He can be understood as being female because there is no distinction between male and female in Christ and because at times he referred to the Deity's characteristics in the feminine. First, Jesus can be perceived in the feminine because the biblical text teaches that in Christ there is no male or female.

• From Paul and Matthew Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Terence L. Donaldson (2021)

  Israel, does not.24 She is faithful when Judah is not. By her faithfulness to the law, Jacob’s prophecy to Judah is fulfilled. 25 Tamar does not speak, anymore than does Judah or anyone else in the genealogy. But by her faithful action the word of God to Judah is “uttered,” brought to fruition in the history of Israel. Does Matthew intend all this in the mere mention of her name? It is worth noting that elements of her story find a complement later in the birth narrative in the episode of Mary’s pregnancy and Joseph’s righteousness; indeed, Clements notes, righteousness is “a key discipleship virtue” in Matthew’s gospel.26 Thus there are thematic parallels between Tamar’s story and Matthew’s gospel that lend credence to the supposition that Matthew has Tamar’s scriptural story in mind. External corroboration, however, is also at hand. In Pseudo-Philo, a first-century Jewish text, Tamar (like several other biblical women) plays a starring role.27 In Pseudo-Philo’s story of the exodus, Tamar serves as crucial scriptural reference point, model of faithfulness to God’s covenant people and purpose. When Pharaoh commands the Egyptians to throw the sons of the Hebrews into the river and make their daughters slaves, the Israelites despair. In their despair, they propose to cease having children altogether.28 Amram protests: this is, he suggests, an act of unfaithfulness to the God who has both commanded and covenanted with Israel that they “be made many on the earth” ( L.A.B. 9:2; cf. Gen 1:28, 12:2, 15:5, 17:4–7; Exod 1:8, etc.). Precisely here, Amram appeals to Tamar: Tamar who hid her dangerous pregnancy until the third month; Tamar who was willing to die in order that her son might be a son of Israel ( L.A.B. 9:5); Tamar who believed that it is with Israel that the Lord God has made a covenant. Tamar’s pregnancy serves as an example of righteous faith over and against the Israelites’ failure of faith—a righteous faith that allows the necessary begetting to continue, so that God’s promises to Israel might be fulfilled. Pseudo-Philo’s appeal to Tamar in the context of the genealogical fulfilment of God’s covenant promises—an appeal to which her scriptural story is essential background— provides a parallel to Matthew’s appeal to Tamar in the same context. Thanks to Amram’s appeal to faithful Tamar, in Pseudo-Philo, the Israelite line continues and 24 Cf. A. J. Levine, “Rahab in the New Testament,” in Meyers et al., Women in Scripture, 141–2, here 141: Rahab and the women of the genealogy were seen in contemporary Jewish and Christian literature “not as sinners but as manifesting righteousness.” Indeed, they “may also indicate the higher righteousness that Matthew frequently endorses” (142). 25 Cf. A. J. Levine, Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Social History (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 14; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988), 85: Tamar shows greater faith than Judah through her “fidelity to the tradition of Levirate marriage.”

• From The Boys of My Youth (1998)

  Beard finds, always and perfectly, the heartbreaking poetry in everyday speech.” — LIESEL LITZENBURGER, Detroit Free Press “This engaging collection records both wrenching and riotous episodes in the life of a keenly observant character named Jo Ann, whom we follow from babyhood to marriage and beyond.... Humor, terrific insights, and not a little rue make these stories shine, each one a jewel loaded with sparkle and grit.” — Elle “Beard pulls off a neat trick: She shows tragedy for what it is in life — plain old moment-to-moment misery.” — JANET STEEN, Time Out New York “Exquisitely crafted autobiographical essays that have the arc and thrust of good fiction.... Beard’s high-wire trick is that despite such grievous subject matter, she hangs on to her squinty, skinny-girl-on-the-sidelines sense of humor and never lapses into mawkishness.” —SARAH TOWERS, Mirabella “Jo Ann Beard’s work impresses me no end. Funny without being sitcomish, self-aware without being self-absorbed, scrupulous without being fussy, emotional without being sentimental, pointed without being cruel — I could go on and on with these distinctions, all in Beard’s favor, but instead I’ll just say that Jo Ann Beard is a fantastic writer, an Athena born fully formed out of her own painstaking head.” — JEFFREY EUGENIDES, author of The Virgin Suicides PRAISE FOR Jo ANN BEARD’S The Boys of My Youth “Reading Jo Ann Beard’s prose feels as comfortable as falling into step beside an old, intimate friend. She’s the sort of writer whose charm lies in the voice — a kitchen-table drawl entirely uncontaminated by sentimentality.... Beard remembers (or imagines) her childhood self with an uncanny lucidity that startles.” — LAURA MILLER, New York Times Book Review “Utterly compelling... uncommonly beautiful.... The writing lifts the book into the stratosphere.... The key is a voice of equal parts curiosity and vulnerability. Life in these pages is an astonishment.... The Boys of My Youth speaks volumes about growing up female and struggling to remain true to yourself.” — DAN CRYER, Newsday “Jo Ann Beard sustains an almost miraculous level of detachment as she describes the stuff of nightmares... and how she, and by implication all of us, survive them.... Beard evokes the dizzying sensation of tragedy, but she also provides weird, sparkling moments of grace and stillness. The Boys of My Youth evokes the mundane, the hilarious, the horrific, and the redemptive all taken together, the very rhythm of life.” — ELLEN KANNER, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel “Beard remembers with beautiful simplicity the feeling of youthful longing, and combines those memories with the pains that accompany adult life.” — Marie Claire “These stories do it all. They are smart, funny, and moving. They are personal and unique and also universal.... There is not a false note or wrong word.” — BARBARA FISHER, Boston Globe “Smart, funny, and moving....A gifted and gutsy writer.... This is what a first collection of stories should be.” —Barbara Fisher, Boston Globe Cousins, mothers, sisters, dolls, dogs, best friends: these are the fixed points in.

• From Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality (2007)

  The word submit is the Greek word hupotasso, and it’s actually two words stuck together: the word upo, which means “under,” and the word tasso, which is translated “to place in order.” To submit means “to place yourself under, to give allegiance to, to tend to the needs of, to be responsive to.” Some scholars believe it originated as a military term, in the sense that when soldiers submit, they place themselves under their commanding officer. The passage says we are to place ourselves under one another out of reverence, or respect, for Christ. This reference to Jesus calls us to follow his example, his sacrifice, his giving his life for ours. As it’s written in the book of John, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son.”2 At the heart of the worldview of a Christian is the simple truth that people are worth dying for. I was in New York City last week and took some friends to see Ground Zero. It’s hard to explain what it’s like to be there. A haunting sadness seems to linger in the air. But the actual site where the towers collapsed is not the most powerful thing for me about visiting the site. What moves me is to walk several blocks in any direction and pass the firehouses, where there are memorials to the firefighters from those neighborhood stations who lost their lives climbing up the towers to save people. Why do the flowers and plaques and mementos out on the sidewalk stir us like they do? Why do we hear stories of people risking their lives to save others and we often tear up, even if we don’t know any of the people involved? Because people are worth dying for. We know it to be true deep in our bones. And when we see someone actually do it, it’s overwhelming. Jesus said in one of his teachings that there’s no greater love a person can have than to lay down their life for another.3 We know this to be true. People are worth dying for. The You’s Are Plural So the teaching of the passage in Ephesians is to love and serve the people around you, placing their needs ahead of your own, out of respect and reverence for Jesus, who gave his life for us, the ultimate act of love and sacrifice. Die to yourselves, so that others can live. Like Jesus. This passage is being written to a church, to a group of people. The “you” here is plural, meaning many people are being addressed with these words. This church is being taught how to live together in such a way that when people observe their lives together, they will see what Jesus is like. In Greek, the passage continues with verse 22: “Wives, to your husbands as to the Lord.” Did you notice that a word is missing?

• From In the Dream House (2019)

  Dream House as Queer Villainy I think a lot about queer villains, the problem and pleasure and audacity of them. I know I should have a very specific political response to them. I know, for example, I should be offended by Disney’s lineup of vain, effete ne’er-do-wells (Scar, Jafar), sinister drag queens (Ursula, Cruella de Vil), and constipated, man-hating power dykes (Lady Tremaine, Maleficent). I should be furious at Downton Abbey’s scheming gay butler and Girlfriend ’s controlling, lunatic lesbian, and I should be indignant about Rebecca and Strangers on a Train and Laura and The Terror and All About Eve , and every other classic and contemporary foppish, conniving, sissy, cruel, humorless, depraved, evil, insane homosexual on the large and small screen. And yet, while I recognize the problem intellectually—the system of coding, the way villainy and queerness became a kind of shorthand for each other—I cannot help but love these fictional queer villains. I love them for all of their aesthetic lushness and theatrical glee, their fabulousness, their ruthlessness, their power . They’re always by far the most interesting characters on the screen. After all, they live in a world that hates them. They’ve adapted; they’ve learned to conceal themselves. They’ve survived. In Alain Guiraudie’s Stranger by the Lake , the young protagonist, Franck, witnesses an older man, Michel, drowning his boyfriend in a lake that serves as a local cruising spot. Shortly thereafter, he begins an affair with Michel. After the boyfriend’s body is found, the gay community that exists along the shore is shaken, thrown into emotional turmoil while simultaneously maintaining its collective routines. As an enterprising inspector begins to sniff around for answers, Franck finds himself lying for his new lover and trying to get closer to him. Franck’s decision to stay with the handsome, magnetic murderer is only a few notches exaggerated from a pretty relatable problem: an inability to find logical footing when you’re being knocked around by waves of lust, love, loneliness. Michel does not have the campy fabulousness of so many queer villains, and is in many ways far more sinister. He is attractive, charismatic, and morally empty. We are given almost no clues about his backstory, his murderous motivations. There is a question of representation tied up in the anguish around the queer villain; when so few gay characters appear on-screen, their disproportionate villainy is—obviously—suspect. It tells a single story, to paraphrase Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, and creates real-life associations of evil and depravity. It is not incorrect to tell an artist that there is responsibility tangled up in whom you choose to make villains, but it is also not a simple matter. As it turns out, queer villains become far more interesting among other gay characters, both within a specific project or universe and the zeitgeist at large. They become one star in a larger constellation; they are put in context.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  the cloakroom, he always had a good joke to tell or some amusing anecdote. He had spent his early years in rural poverty, and although he was well educated, his language had some of the color and biting humor of the Texan farmer and migrant worker. The senators found him amusing. Even Tom Connally had to admit that he had somehow misread him. Older senators, referred to at the time as Old Bulls, particularly came to appreciate Lyndon Johnson. Although they held positions of great authority based on their seniority, they often felt insecure about their age (some were in their eighties) and their physical and mental capacities. But here was Johnson visiting their offices frequently, intent on absorbing their wisdom. One older Democratic senator in particular took to Johnson— Richard Russell of Georgia. He was only eleven years older than Johnson, but he had been serving in the Senate since 1933 and had become one of its most powerful members. They had gotten to know each other because Johnson had requested and received a seat on the Armed Services Committee, on which Russell was second in seniority. Russell crossed paths with Johnson in the cloakroom, in the corridors, on the Senate floor; he seemed to be everywhere. And although Johnson visited Russell in his office almost every day, Russell came to enjoy his presence. Like Russell, Johnson was mostly all business, and full of questions on arcane Senate procedures. He began to call Russell “the Old Master,” and he would often say, “Well, that’s a lesson from the Old Master. I’ll remember that.” Russell was one of the few senators who had remained a bachelor. He never admitted he was lonely, but he spent almost all of his time at his Senate office, even on Sundays. As Johnson would often be in Russell’s office discussing some matter until the evening, he would sometimes invite Russell over for dinner at his house, telling him that his wife, Lady Bird, was an excellent cook, particularly good with southern dishes. The first few times Russell politely refused, but finally he relented and he soon became a weekly regular at the Johnson house. Lady Bird was charming and he quickly took to her. Slowly the relationship between Russell and Johnson deepened. Russell was a baseball fanatic, and to his delight, Johnson confessed a weakness for the sport as well. Now they would go together to night games of the Washington Senators. A day would not pass in which they did not see each other, as the two of them would often be the only senators in their offices working on the weekends. They seemed to have so many interests in common, including the Civil War, and they thought alike on so many issues dear to southern Democrats, such as their opposition to a civil rights bill. Soon Russell could be heard touting the junior senator as “a can-do young man” with a capacity equal to his own for hard work.

• From Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence (2006)

  The psychology of our desire often lies buried in the details of our childhood, and digging through the early history of our lives uncovers its archaeology. We can trace back to where we learned to love and how. Did we learn to experience pleasure or not, to trust others or not, to receive or be denied? Were our parents monitoring our needs or were we expected to monitor theirs? Did we turn to them for protection, or did we flee them to protect ourselves? Were we rejected? Humiliated? Abandoned? Were we held? Rocked? Soothed? Did we learn not to expect too much, to hide when we are upset, to make eye contact? In our family, we sense when it’s OK to thrive and when others might be hurt by our zest. We learn how to feel about our body, our gender, and our sexuality. And we learn a multitude of other lessons about who and how to be: to open up or to shut down, to sing or to whisper, to cry or to hide our tears, to dare or to be afraid. All these experiences shape our beliefs about ourselves and our expectations for others. They are part of the dowry each man and woman brings to adult love. Part of this emotional scorecard is obvious and manifest, but much of it is unspoken, concealed even from ourselves. Our sexual preferences arise from the thrills, challenges, and conflicts of our early life. How these bear on our threshold for closeness and pleasure is the object of our excavation. What turns you on and what turns you off? What draws you in? What leaves you cold? Why? How much closeness can you stand to feel? Can you tolerate pleasure with the one you love? When Steven’s father abandoned his mother, she picked up the pieces, devoted herself to caring for her children, and swore she would never let anyone hurt her like that again. An ER nurse, today she owns her home and has put three kids through college. Steven is filled with admiration and respect for his mother, and has spent much of his life guarding against becoming what he calls, “that asshole.” Six years into his marriage to Rita, he finds himself avoiding her démarches and ducking her accusations about his sexual passivity. Behind his excuses, Steven is baffled by his lack of interest—and by his unreliable erections. The more he loves and respects his wife, the harder it is for him to fuck her. In Steven’s mind, emotional security requires a constant monitoring of any selfish or aggressive inclinations. This belief, which grew out of his love for his mother, has become part of his sexuality. The more he loves Rita and the more he depends on her, the greater his need for caution and the more inhibited he is sexually. He doesn’t know how to experience the open range of lust in the context of emotional care. His unconscious is loyal to the past.

• From Paul and Matthew Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Terence L. Donaldson (2021)

  16 John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Both Doctrinal and Practical (London: George Keith, 1774), I, 633–4. Mark 14:51–52161 161 to be the followers of Christ.” Following the lead of both Calvin and Collinges, Gill drove home the fact that “the preservation of the disciples, was entirely owing to the wonderful power of Christ.” 17 Though an opponent of Gill, the Arminian Methodist preacher John Wesley, like both Collinges and Gill, did not believe the young man was a true disciple of Christ, for he observed that while the soldiers were able to lay their hands on this man, they could not touch those who were really Christ’s disciples. 18 But neither the search for the young man’s identity nor the desire to see him as a disciple disappeared entirely in the study and preaching of this period. Particularly noteworthy among eighteenth-century English Protestant comments on this passage are those of the Congregationalist Philip Doddridge, whose evangelical study bible The Family Expositor (6 vols., 1739–56) was a bestseller in its day. Like Gill, Doddridge thought that the young man “lodged in a house near the Garden” of Gethsemane but returned to the notion of the young man as a disciple when he suggested that the young man, “having an affection for Christ,” followed him and the other disciples. His partial nudity was a result of his “apprehending him [that is, Christ] in danger” and, forgetful of his own appearance, he rushed from bed out of “his concern for Jesus.” 19 For Doddridge the young man has become not only a disciple but the very exemplar of a model disciple. 20 Though some later Anglophone Protestant preachers appear to have ventured to preach on the text, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the celebrated Victorian preacher, who had an eye for unusual biblical texts, returned to some of the reflections of centuries earlier when he observed: This little episode in the narrative of the evangelist is very singular. One wonders why it is introduced; but a moment’s reflection will, I think, suggest a plausible reason. It strikes me that this “certain young man” was none other than Mark himself. 21 Spurgeon went on to admit that his identification of the young man as Mark was “merely a supposition,” but he appealed to “the more recondite critics of the modern school” who also identified the young man of Mark 14 as the gospel writer. This was an odd move for Spurgeon to make for he was generally opposed to the critical New 17 Gill, Exposition, 634. For Gill’s monergistic soteriology, see Curt Daniel, “John Gill and Calvinistic Antinomianism,” in The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697–1771): A Terrcentennial Appreciation (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 171–90 and Michael A. G. Haykin, “Remembering Baptist Heroes: The Example of John Gill,” in Ministry By His Grace and for His Glory: Essays in Honor of Thomas J. Nettles ( ed. Thomas K. Ascol and Nathan A. Finn; Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2011), 17–37.

• From Paul and Matthew Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Terence L. Donaldson (2021)

  In the spirit of friendship and respect for a great scholar and a genuine caring human being, I, alongside other colleagues and friends, present this Festschrift to Professor Terry Donaldson with respect and admiration. I also want to thank his wife, Lois, and his adult children Graeme, Meredith, and David. Tabula Gratulatoria Robert Derrenbacker Stephen Chambers John Kampen John W. Marshal Richard S. Ascough Mark Nanos Edith Humphrey Paula Fredriksen Margaret Y. MacDonald John S. Kloppenborg Philip A. Harland Harry O. Maier Colleen Shantz Cecilia Wassen Peter Richardson Bradley H. McLean Bruce W. Longenecker Richard N. Longenecker Michael Knowles Don Garlington Catherine Jones Ho Jin Nam Murray Baker Joan Campbel John Bertone Luke Amoussou Robert Jewett Steve Notley N. T. Wright 6 6 7 Part One Paul 8 9 1 Paul without Judaism: Historical Method over Perspective Steve Mason Looking back on Pauline research in the last decades there is one trend which is general y accepted in international scholarship, namely that Paul is a Jew, and that he must be understood on the background of Judaism and the O.T. Johannes Munck1 A nomenclature which is thrust upon the past will always end by distorting it, whether by design or simply as a consequence of equating its categories with our own, raised, for the moment, to the level of the eternal. There is no reasonable attitude toward such labels except to eliminate them. Marc Bloch2 When I left a chair in ancient history to take up a New Testament (NT) post (2011), my world changed in many ways. What struck me most about the graduate-student cadre in the new setting was their fascination with “the new perspective on Paul” (hereafter NP). This impressed me, first, because the “new” perspective was older than most of them. Second, it seemed a tiny boat, lashed to the already small ship of Paul’s corpus, for so many researchers. Third, most seemed at least as concerned about alignment with a Paul-guru or theological tradition as with the open-ended project of understanding the historical Paul. This last impression was strengthened during research for an SBL panel on part of N. T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2013).3 I found the internet heaving with debates about whether Wright’s Paul fit the NP and, more earnestly, whether Wright was sound in relation to a theological standard. Any distinction between Wright’s own theology and that of Wright’s Paul was hard to detect. I could not help thinking: “Some of you say I belong to Sanders, 1 Johannes Munck, “Pauline Research since Schweitzer,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed. J. Philip Hyatt; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1965), 166–77 (174). 2 March Bloch, The Historian’s Craft (trans. P. Putnam; New York, NY: Vintage, 1953 [manuscript ca. 1943]). 3 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London: SPCK, 2013). 10 10 Paul and Matthew among Jews and Gentiles some to Dunn, some to Wright, some to Campbell (Douglas or William). What about me, Paul?”

• From Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence (2006)

  I’ve transferred my personal experience to my professional work as a clinician, teacher, and consultant working in cross-cultural psychology. Having focused on cultural transition, I’ve specifically worked with three populations: refugee families and international families (the two groups that move most these days, albeit for very different reasons) and intercultural couples (which include interracial and interfaith pairings). For intercultural couples, the cultural shifts do not stem from a geographic move, but instead take place in their own living rooms. What really piqued my interest was how this merging of cultures influenced gender relations and child-rearing practices. I pondered the many meanings of marriage, and how its role and its place in the larger family system varies in different national contexts. Is it a private act of two individuals or a communal affair between two families? In my sessions with couples, I tried to discern the cultural nuances behind the discussion of commitment, intimacy, pleasure, orgasm, and the body. Love may be universal, but its constructions in each culture are defined, both literally and figuratively, in different languages. I was particularly sensitive to the conversations about child and adolescent sexuality because it is in messages to children that societies most reveals their values, goals, incentives, prohibitions. I speak eight languages. Some I learned at home, some at school, a few during my travels, and one or two through love. In my practice, I am called on to use my multicultural proficiency as well as my skill as a polyglot. My patients are straight and gay (I don’t work with the transgender population at this time), married, committed, single, and remarried. They are young, old, and in between. They cover a wide spectrum of cultures, race, and class. Their individual stories highlight the cultural and psychological forces that shape how we love and how we desire.