In the creation/evolution debate, some biblical literalists have raised the point that until recent times the church never questioned the historicity of Adam. Peter Enns responds to the point:

Knowing what the history of the church has thought about Adam is not an argument for Adam’s historicity, as some seem to think, since the history of the church did not have evolution to deal with until recently.

That’s the whole point of this debate—evolution is a new factor we have to address.

Appealing to a time in church history before evolution was a factor as an authoritative voice in the discussion over evolution simply makes no sense. What Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans assumed about human origins is not relevant. (And, no, I am not dismissing the study of church history, historical theology, etc., by saying this.)

Calling upon church history does not solve the problem; it simply restates it.

via Recurring Mistakes in the Adam/Evolution Discussion | Peter Enns.

Long quote from James McGrath about transcending death as more than resurrection.

There is no way that a historian can conclude that Jesus rose from the grave – or demonstrate decisively that he did not. There doesn’t seem to be any way that scientists could ever decisively show that there is a spiritual afterlife – or decisively demonstrate that there couldn’t possibly be.

Perhaps rather than simply take sides in such debates, progressive religious believers ought instead to shift our attention to transcending death. Did Jesus survive death? How could one settle that debate to everyone’s satisfaction? But did Jesus transcend death? There I think that we can provide a definite answer, and that answer is “yes.” Can anyone deny the impact he had on at least some of those who knew him? Can anyone deny that his life and teaching have continued to impact and transform others, and continue to do so? Would anyone say that there is no sense in which Jesus lives on, even if only in the hearts and minds of those who find in him something transformative – whether an example, a Messiah, a savior or a deity?

…If Jesus did not transcend death, then whether or not he survived death would be a mere fact, and nothing more.

via Transcending Death « Exploring Our Matrix.

There’s an interesting article about introverts marrying extroverts at the blog Introverted Church. My wife and I aren’t polar opposites, Myers-Briggs style, but we do have an intro/extrovert mixed marriage.

The payoff question-and-answer from the article:

So here’s my question: given the vast potential for misunderstanding and conflict between introverts and extroverts, why do so many of us marry our polar opposite? The old cliché says that opposites attract, but why?

In typical introvert fashion, I gave much thought to this issue. My conclusion? We seek the strengths that we lack. Whether consciously or not, we recognize our own weaknesses and look for a partner that can fill in the holes: someone who brings balance to our lives.

via Introverted Church: Guest Post: Married to an Extrovert.

I love my extrovert.

From a blog post outlining why the author believes that the Resurrection happened in some form or another.

[T]he dialectic to be found in the cross and the resurrection presents the best response to the question of theodicy that I have encountered (or the “open wound of life” as Moltmann called it). In the cross, Christ is an innocent person being executed, a man abandoned by his friends and utterly forsaken by God. But the resurrection is God’s response. Christ is vindicated by God and installed as lord and judge over all. It instills hope for the future regarding the open wound of life.

via Why I Believe in the Resurrection | Diglotting.