Podcast appearances and mentions of joseph fletcher

Sarah “Sally” Pillsbury and Jean B. Fletcher were both architects who married architects. The two women and their husbands were founding members of The Architects Collaborative (TAC), a visionary, idealistic architecture firm founded just after WWII. The two women, who had 13 children between them, lived with their families and several other founding partners in Six Moon Hill, a residential community in Lexington, Massachusetts, designed by the group. TAC was a world class firm of eight architects, including famed architect Walter Gropius, working collectively as a team, stressing anonymity of design. The group won design awards and competitions, and was hired by the National Institute of Architects to design their new headquarters.They also designed the Harvard Graduate Center, many civic and educational buildings, and the University of Baghdad. Soon after the founding of the firm in 1947, Sarah and Jean wrote an article for House & Garden titled “Architecture, Family Style” which – as their biographer Michael Kubo writes – constituted something of a manifesto for the changing needs of the postwar housewife. Produced by Brandi Howell for Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation's podcast New Angle: Voice with host Cynthia Krakauer. Editorial advising from Alexandra Lange.  Production assistants Virginia Eskridge and Aislinn McNamara. Special thanks to Sara Harkness and Joseph Fletcher, Michael Kubo and Amanda Kolson Hurley.  Current Six Moon Hill residents Linda Pagani and Barbara Katzenberg kindly opened their homes and shared their stories.  Long time TAC  partners Perry Neubauer and Gail Flynn were generous with their time as were Andrea Leers and Jane Weinzapfel.  The archival oral history of Sally Harkness comes from her interview with Wendy Cox. Funding for New Angle: Voice comes from National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Graham Foundation. The Kitchen Sisters Present is produced by The Kitchen Sisters (Nikki Silva & Davia Nelson) with Brandi Howell and Nathan Dalton. Supported by the National Endowment for the Arts and contributors to the non profit Kitchen Sisters Productions. The Kitchen Sisters Present is part of Radiotopia from PRX, a curated network of podcasts created by independent producers.

Sarah Pillsbury, or Sally as she was better known by her peers, and Jean Bodman were both architects who married architects.  As an architect who also married an architect, my perspective may be more inside baseball on the professional side, but utter awe and fascination on the family end. I'm Cynthia Phifer Kracauer, architect, Executive Director of the Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation, mother of only two, and your host.   Welcome to our last episode of New Angle Voice 2023.  It's hard to look at the early days of TAC—the Architects Collaborative—for a time a world-class firm founded by two husband/wife couples and a handful of their classmates … with Walter Gropius thrown in to give them the gravitas that concealed their youth—without a bit of nostalgia.  Nostalgia for the naïve progressive ideology, nostalgia for that post World War 2 hope that the world could be remade through architecture—after all, Europe was rubble—and utter amazement that the firm fared as well as long as it did.  TAC was admired by women of my generation who saw two women partners with 13 children between them, garnering design awards, winning competitions, and acting on a world stage with far flung offices and impressive civic and institutional work.  For goodness sakes the National American Institute of Architects hired them for their new headquarters!  What could be more iconic.   Soon after the founding of the firm in 1947, Sarah and Jean wrote an article for House & Garden titled “Architecture, Family Style” which – as their biographer Michael Kubo writes – constituted something of a manifesto for the changing needs of the postwar housewife. But as we all know, sometimes youthful dreams don't pan out. In this episode, we revisit the utopian fantasy that the Architects Collaborative built and take a look inside.  “Architecture, Family Style – The Lives and Work of Sarah Harkness and Jean Fletcher".   Special thanks in this episode to Sara Harkness and Joseph Fletcher, Michael Kubo and Amanda Kolson Hurley.  Current Six Moon Hill residents Linda Pagani and Barbara Katzenberg kindly opened their homes and shared their stories.  Long time TAC  partners Perry Neubauer and Gail Flynn were generous with their time as were Andrea Leers and Jane Weinzapfel.  The archival oral history of Sally Harkness comes from her interview with Wendy Cox.   This podcast is produced by Brandi Howell, with editorial advising from Alexandra Lange.   Thanks also to production assistants Virginia Eskridge and Aislinn McNamara. New Angle Voice is brought to you by the Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation.  Funding for this podcast comes from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Graham Foundation.  

Scripture Reading: Genesis 1:1-3:24 (we won't read it again, but we will discuss it) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”27 God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.'” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”14 The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,cursed are you above all the cattleand all the living creatures of the field!On your belly you will crawland dust you will eat all the days of your life.15 And I will put hostility between you and the womanand between your offspring and her offspring;he will strike your head,and you will strike his heel.”16 To the woman he said,“I will greatly increase your labor pains;with pain you will give birth to children.You will want to control your husband,but he will dominate you.”17 But to Adam he said,“Because you obeyed your wifeand ate from the tree about which I commanded you,‘You must not eat from it,'the ground is cursed because of you;in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,but you will eat the grain of the field.19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat fooduntil you return to the ground,for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.Main ThemesInitial RemarksLet's Come Together (Finally!)If the last two weeks of the Bible study have been divisive, I hope that this week brings us all back together. During those two sessions, I suggested the possibility that the early chapters of Genesis are figurative. Nevertheless, I asserted repeatedly that they are true. Today, I want to focus on those truths embedded in the narrative. What is Genesis teaching us? And here's the surprising part: even if you adamantly disagree with me and believe the text is meant to be taken completely literally, or if you land somewhere in between, I think we will agree on the main lessons taught by the text. They stand mostly independently of the figurative versus literal debate.A Minimum Facts PresentationBefore we jump into the substantive portion of our discussion, I want to make one important clarification. The purpose of my dive into Genesis is to establish a Christian worldview. We are not engaging in an exhaustive exploration of every textual and theological issue. So, the discussion today will be a sort of “minimum facts” presentation. That is, I want to highlight the most basic lessons in the text with which virtually every Christian agrees. I will not delve into every possible conclusion that can be drawn from the text, although that would be very interesting. And, as always, participants are free to discuss anything I did not include in my presentation. So, again, the list below is not an exhaustive list of the points made by the first three chapters of Genesis, much less by the entire book. It is more of a “top four.”Genesis v/s Enuma ElishI think that a good way to explore the worldview presented by Genesis is to compare the biblical text to the Enuma Elish, the ancient Babylonian creation myth. (You can find it here.) The Enuma Elish is fairly representative of many Ancient Near East myths, so it provides a great backdrop against which Genesis shows its distinctive outline. (I am not necessarily embracing or rejecting the view that Genesis is a polemic against other Ancient Near Eastern myths. I simply find the comparison to be helpful.)One God—No Theomachy, No Theogony, No Deicide Listen the words of the Enuma Elish:1 When the heavens above did not exist,2 And earth beneath had not come into being —3 There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,4 And demiurge Tia-mat, who gave birth to them all;5 They had mingled their waters together6 Before meadow-land had coalesced and reed-bed was to be found —7 When not one of the gods had been formed8 Or had come into being, when no destinies had been decreed,9 The gods were created within them:10 Lah(mu and Lah(amu were formed and came into being.11 While they grew and increased in stature12 Anšar and Kišar, who excelled them, were created.13 They prolonged their days, they multiplied their years.14 Anu, their son, could rival his fathers.15 Anu, the son, equalled Anšar,16 And Anu begat Nudimmud, his own equal.17 Nudimmud was the champion among his fathers:18 Profoundly discerning, wise, of robust strength;19 Very much stronger than his father's begetter, Anšar20 He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.21 The divine brothers came together,22 Their clamour got loud, throwing Tia-mat into a turmoil.23 They jarred the nerves of Tia-mat,24 And by their dancing they spread alarm in Anduruna.25 Apsû did not diminish their clamour,26 And Tia-mat was silent when confronted with them.27 Their conduct was displeasing to her,28 Yet though their behaviour was not good, she wished to spare them.29 Thereupon Apsû, the begetter of the great gods,30 Called Mummu, his vizier, and addressed him,31 "Vizier Mummu, who gratifies my pleasure,32 Come, let us go to Tia-mat!"33 They went and sat, facing Tia-mat,34 As they conferred about the gods, their sons.35 Apsû opened his mouth36 And addressed Tia-mat37 "Their behaviour has become displeasing to me38 And I cannot rest in the day-time or sleep at night.39 I will destroy and break up their way of life40 That silence may reign and we may sleep."41 When Tia-mat heard this42 She raged and cried out to her spouse,43 She cried in distress, fuming within herself,44 She grieved over the (plotted) evil,45 "How can we destroy what we have given birth to?46 Though their behaviour causes distress, let us tighten discipline graciously."47 Mummu spoke up with counsel for Apsû—48 (As from) a rebellious vizier was the counsel of his Mummu—49 "Destroy, my father, that lawless way of life,50 That you may rest in the day-time and sleep by night!"51 Apsû was pleased with him, his face beamed52 Because he had plotted evil against the gods, his sons.53 Mummu put his arms around Apsû's neck,54 He sat on his knees kissing him.55 What they plotted in their gathering56 Was reported to the gods, their sons.57 The gods heard it and were frantic.58 They were overcome with silence and sat quietly.59 Ea, who excels in knowledge, the skilled and learned,60 Ea, who knows everything, perceived their tricks.61 He fashioned it and made it to be all-embracing,62 He executed it skilfully as supreme—his pure incantation.63 He recited it and set it on the waters,64 He poured sleep upon him as he was slumbering deeply.65 He put Apsû to slumber as he poured out sleep,66 And Mummu, the counsellor, was breathless with agitation.67 He split (Apsû's) sinews, ripped off his crown,68 Carried away his aura and put it on himself.69 He bound Apsû and killed him;Notice how this ancient myth sounds nothing like Genesis. It immediately greets us with multiple gods (Apsû, the first in order, and the demiurge Tia-mat). Other gods are subsequently created. A genealogy of gods is called a theogony, and it was common to ancient myths. Genesis, however, has no genealogy. At most, in Genesis, when God speaks he uses a plural form—like maybe he is addressing a crowd. This has led some scholars to posit a heavenly council. But there is no god other than God—Yahweh.The Enuma Elish tells the story not only of multiple gods but of their animosity. A conflict between the gods arises. A war between the gods is called theomachy. This is also common to ancient myths. Finally, the gods' quarrel ends in the death of a god—deicide. If we continue reading, we would learn that creation itself is the result of this rivalry between the gods and their death.What do we find in Genesis? None of that!In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1In the beginning there is no two anything. There are no two gods opposing one another. There is not even an impersonal dualism like a ying and yang. There is no good and evil. There is only good. And this good is not some mystical goodness, like a force or energy or “waters,” but a good God—a personal being.This is one of the most shocking and powerful lessons from Genesis—monotheism! And, if we are willing to take more of scripture into account, we could go as far as to say that it is “perfect being monotheism.” This means that there's not only one God, but that God is perfect. He is all powerful and morally perfect. I think that this “perfect being theology” is key to a robust conception of “good.” A theology that includes multiple gods will generally fail the Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it's good?” A theology with no gods (atheism or some form of dualism) makes goodness accidental—it is a robust fact that could be different—and cannot account for moral duties. It is only when goodness is grounded in a necessary being that what is good could never be otherwise and goodness becomes personal such that it can give moral duties to others.God is Not Like NatureAgain, hear the words of the Enuma Elish:49 [Marduk] gathered [Tia-mat's foam] together and made it into clouds.50 The raging of the winds, violent rainstorms,51 The billowing of mist—the accumulation of her spittle—52 He appointed for himself and took them in his hand.53 He put her head in position and poured out . . [ . . ] .54 He opened the abyss and it was sated with water.55 From her two eyes he let the Euphrates and Tigris flow,57 He heaped up the distant [mountains] on her breasts,58 He bored wells to channel the springs.59 He twisted her tail and wove it into the Durmah,61 [He set up] her crotch—it wedged up the heavens—62 [(Thus) the half of her] he stretched out and made it firm as the earth.In the Babylonian story, the clouds, the wind, the rainstorms, the rivers, the mountains, and much of creation is a part of or physically connected with Tiamat's body. Notice the connection between the gods and creation—they might not be entirely the same but they are not entirely distinct either.What do we find in Genesis?God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” Genesis 1:6God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” Genesis 1:9God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” Genesis 1:11God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years . . . .” Genesis 1:14I could quote more verses, but I think the point is clear. God is not like creation. Creation is not made of God. It is made by God. God simply speaks creation into being. God transcends it. The creator who makes things good exists even if nothing else exists and would exists if all stopped existing. He is the beginning and the end.Nature is Not SpiritualAlthough the Enuma Elish story does not contain as many spirits of nature as other Ancient Near Eastern myths, we still have a clear example. Listen to this:11 He placed the heights (of heaven) in her (Tia-mat's) belly,12 He created Nannar, entrusting to him the night.13 He appointed him as the jewel of the night to fix the days,14 And month by month without ceasing he elevated him with a crown,15 (Saying,) "Shine over the land at the beginning of the month,16 Resplendent with horns to fix six days.17 On the seventh day the crown will be half size,18 On the fifteenth day, halfway through each month, stand in opposition.19 When Šamaš [sees] you on the horizon,20 Diminish in the proper stages and shine backwards.In the Enuma Elish, night is a personal god. Night does not behave according to some natural principle. Night only comes and stays for as long as it does because the god of night is following orders. Presumably, the god of night could be enticed to disobey. Is all of nature like this? (For purposes of this discussion I am not including animals or humans in the definition of nature.) Is there a spirit of the waters? Is there a spirit of the sky? Are the flowers sprites and the trees dryads? Does everything around us behave as it does because a personal being—a spirit—is choosing to behave a certain way? The implications of these questions are staggering.Perhaps we scoff at the idea that nature is personal and spiritual, but we shouldn't. Not because I think that it is true but because it is the worldview that was held by nearly everyone in the ancient world and many (perhaps most) people still hold it today. If anything, the idea that nature is “non-spiritual” is not the rule but the exception. If to the belief in a non-spiritual natural world you you add the belief that nature was created by a mind—a mind not entirely unlike ours—then you have an entirely peculiar worldview. That is the worldview of Genesis.The Christian, non-spiritual, intelligible understanding of creation is distinctive and has shaped the modern world. For example, it is foundational and necessary for science. This is the reason that many historians (Christian and non-Christian alike) agree that science is an outgrowth of Christian theology. Here's how an article explains the connection between Genesis and science, which, if overly simplistic, gets the point across:1. Laws Up AboveThe ancient Chinese had incredible technology, but not science as we know it. Why? Because while they were intelligent, they did not believe in a Higher Intelligence—not in the Bible's sense. They didn't think there were ever-present, always-applicable laws of nature that governed the universe. They went out into the world and tamed it through technology, but they didn't seek to press into the deeper laws of the universe.That's because they didn't have Genesis 1. They didn't believe that “In the beginning, God.” They didn't believe that through his Word an ordered cosmos was created that shows all the hallmarks of dependable regularities—seasons and spheres with boundaries and signs in the sky, all going round and round, evening and morning, evening and morning. . . .2. World Out ThereThe ancient Greeks were smart cookies. All philosophy is a footnote to Plato, as they say. Philosophy, mathematics, art, and literature were all spheres of excellence for the Greeks. Science? Not so much, because science requires you to believe in a stable and predictable world out there that's open to investigation. Science occurs when you make repeatable observations and check your theories against the cold, hard facts. But Greeks didn't believe in cold, hard facts. They believed in minds and reason and laws but not in empirical investigation. For them, study entailed a journey within the mind, not a venture out into the field. So, no science.3. Minds In HereIf human minds are the product of mindless operations that only honored survival, not intelligence (the two aren't at all synonymous), then why should we trust our minds to understand the laws up above and the world out there? If we're the product of the cosmos and part of the cosmos with no higher calling than to pass on our genes, why trust a brain that whirs away according to its own survival imperative?If you really want confidence in the scientific endeavor, turn to Genesis 1, where humanity is specially created in relationship with the Orderer above and the world out there. . . .Another website summarizes the same principles as follows:Nearly all scientists today, regardless of their religious beliefs, believe a certain set of foundational principles which make it possible for them to do science. Some of these common basic beliefs include:(1) Human beings can understand the natural world at least in part.(2) Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect so things that we learn in the lab here today will also hold true half way around the world a week from now. (3) It's not enough to sit and theorize how the world ought to work, we actually have to test our theories; science is a worthwhile pursuit.These beliefs seem obvious today, but for most of human history, many people did not hold all those beliefs. For example, animists who believe that gods or spirits inhabit many aspect of the physical world might doubt that nature operates on regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect; instead they would believe that nature is controlled by gods and spirits who need to be appeased or manipulated by ritual. Or for a very different example, some of the most brilliant philosophers of the ancient world did not see the need to do experiments because they thought it was possible to derive from logic and first principles how the world ought to behave.Allow me to explain the last statement in the quotation above. The Greeks, for example, believed that the universe had to be modeled by elegant abstract principles, such as geometry, which were discoverable only through thought. So, they assumed that the orbits of planets had to be circular. The Christian worldview recognizes that the universe was made by a mind—a mind that could have created the world this way or that way. Because the creator had options, much like an artist does, we can not simply assume that the world is a certain way. We must discover what that mind decided.Man in the Image of GodThe Enuma Elish is one of the least outrageous Ancient Near Eastern myths when it comes to the creation of mankind, but it repeats a common theme:1 When Marduk heard the gods' speech2 He conceived a desire to accomplish clever things.3 He opened his mouth addressing Ea,4 He counsels that which he had pondered in his heart,5 "I will bring together blood to form bone,6 I will bring into being Lullû, whose name shall be 'man'.7 I will create Lullû—man8 On whom the toil of the gods will be laid that they may rest.In the Babylonian creation myth, why is man created? So that the “toil of the gods will be laid” on him. You might remember that last week I mentioned an Egyptian myth that answers the question similarly. Here is how scholar John Walton discusses that Egyptian myth within the broader context of Mesopotamian myths:[I]n Mesopotamian traditions people are created to serve the gods by doing the work that the gods are tired of doing. Turning again to KAR 4, "the corvée of the gods will be their corvée: They will fix the boundaries of the fields once and for all, and take in their hands hoes and baskets, to benefit the House of the great gods." The labor that had been required for the gods to meet their own needs was drudgery, so people were expected to fill that gap and work to meet those needs.In Genesis, why is man created?Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! (Genesis 1:26-28a)This is shocking and remarkable! Man is created to be like God (at least in some sense), to rule the earth, and to be fruitful and multiply. I will discuss each of these points in reverse order.Be Fruitful and MultiplyAccording to Genesis, to marry and have children is integral to being human. Marriage is the very reason that God has made us male and female.So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)To be clear, there are several New Testament verses that make clear that marriage is not a moral duty—one has not sinned for remaining single. However, sadly, this caveat has started acting like the exception that swallows the rule. The Apostle Paul, the one who spoke of marriage and singleness this way, did not suggest singleness as a mere alternative to marriage. Listen to the following verses from 1 Corinthians:I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that.To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire. (1 Corinthians 7:6-9) And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband. I am saying this for your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)He who is single can focus exclusively on ministry. This is a gift. This does not override the fact, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18)! I know that much more can be said about this topic and forgive me if I am painting with too broad a stroke, but the fact that marriage and childbearing is part of God's plan for us is unmistakable in the Genesis narrative.Rule the EarthOur modern, egalitarian, environmentalist sensibilities are sure to be offended by the idea that we are to rule and subdue the earth. However, this idea is not as ominous as it sounds. As a website explains:God's command to subdue the earth and the animal life in it is a command to have the mastery over all of it. A true mastery (of anything) cannot be accomplished without an understanding of the thing mastered. In order for a musician to master the violin, he or she must truly understand the instrument. In order for mankind to attain mastery over the animal kingdom, we must understand the animals.With the authority to rule comes the responsibility to rule well. There is an inherent accountability in the command to subdue the earth. Man has a duty to exercise his dominion under the authority of the One who delegated it. All authority is of God (Romans 13:1-5), and He delegates it to whomever He will (Daniel 4:17). The word subdue doesn't have to imply violence or mistreatment. It can mean “to bring under cultivation.”Man is to be the steward of the earth; he is to bring the material world and all of its varied elements into the service of God and the good of mankind. The command to subdue the earth is actually part of God's blessing on mankind. Created in the image of God, Adam and Eve were to use the earth's vast resources in the service of both God and themselves. It would only make sense for God to decree this, since only humans were created in God's image.The Imago DeiWe are made in the “image of God”—which in theology is often referred to by the Latin phrase imago Dei. What does that mean? I could spend an entire session of our study answering this question. Different theologians give different answers. But, because this is a primer in Genesis, I think that presenting the mainstream position is sufficient. Besides, and rather ironically, it is the mainstream position that is often most misunderstood. Fair warning though, I will go a little beyond the text in Genesis to discuss this topic.What makes a person a person? Even Christians will answer with something like the ability to reason. That is not entirely wrong, but I am sure you can immediately think of examples that work as counterarguments. What about a human being that is in a comma? What about a fetus? What about someone who is asleep? Neither of these three humans can reason, so they are not persons. Taken to its logical conclusion, killing a human in their sleep is not murder. No person was killed.So, what gives? Can we give a better explanation of the imago Dei? I think so. To be a person is to be a rational soul. To explain this further, I will quote extensively from a 2003 paper by Dennis Sullivan (emphases are my own):Empirical functionalism is the view that human personhood may be defined by a set of functions or abilities. Such abilities must be present in actual, not potential form. The classical expression of this view is that of Joseph Fletcher who in 1972 outlined twenty criteria for human personhood. These included such hallmarks as minimum intelligence, self-awareness, a sense of time, and the capacity to relate to others (Fletcher, 1972). In response, Michael Tooley weighed in with the idea of self-awareness (1972), and McCormick with the concept of “relational potential,” based on the ability to interact socially with others (1974). Fletcher then decided, based on feedback from these and other writers, that the sine qua non for human personhood was neocortical functioning (Fletcher, 1974). Neocortical functions are those “higher brain” processes of the cerebral cortex necessary for active consciousness and volition. This should be contrasted with whole-brain functioning, which includes activities of the brainstem as well as the cortex.…Functionalists would extend the above argument to deny personhood to the unborn child, since she lacks rationality or self-awareness. However, by this criterion, one could argue that adults also lack self-awareness when asleep or under anesthesia, yet no one questions their personhood during such moments. One way to circumvent this objection is to use Tooley's idea that only “continuing selves” have personhood, which includes both self-awareness and a sense of the future (Tooley, 1983). This would nonetheless deny personhood to the unborn and justify abortion on that basis.Michael Tooley, and more recently, the Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, have both advocated the next logical step: infanticide (Veith, 1998). If the fetus has no right to personhood because it is not yet self-aware, then neither does the newborn: “Infanticide before the onset of self-awareness . . . cannot threaten anyone who is in a position to worry about it” (Singer, 1985, p. 138).…Ontological personalism states that all human beings are human persons. On this view, the intrinsic quality of personhood begins at conception and is present throughout life (O'Mathuna, 1996). Such individuals are not potential persons or “becoming” persons; they are persons by their very nature. There is no such thing as a potential person or a human non-person.In order to understand this it will be helpful to reflect on the worldview assumptions that underlie both personhood views. Since the Enlightenment, society in general has been dominated by a high regard for science and the secular tradition of naturalism. Naturalism is the concept that only observable data has reality. A scientist who adheres to this view is free to have any metaphysical or philosophical opinion he would like, as long as it does not influence his practice. In other words, he need not hold to naturalism as a philosophy, but he must adhere to it in his methodology (Plantinga, 1997). However, the Christian scientific community should not be bound by the constraints of methodological naturalism. Herein lies the tension between the two ideas of personhood. The influence of naturalism has led secular science away from a reverence for life, replacing it with a reductionism that claims the human organism is no more than the sum of its chemical parts. The empirical functionalism idea of personhood is compatible with this view, which makes man simply a collection of parts and functions, or a property-thing. Put together enough chemical molecules in the right way, and you have a human being; put another set of parts together, and you have a 1957 Chrysler. Philosophically, it makes no difference.Ontological personalism, on the other hand, is based on the premise that a human being is a substance. A substance is a distinct unity of essence that exists ontologically prior to any of its parts. This traditional concept dates back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. This view has been well summarized by the Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland (1995), and is discussed in great detail in the book Body and Soul (Moreland & Rae, 2000). For this review, I will focus on two implications of the idea of substance: the parts v. whole distinction, and continuity.To expand on my earlier illustration of a classic automobile, consider a nicely restored 1957 Chrysler. Many of the original parts have rusted away and have been replaced, so that this vintage car is a collection of old and new. Although many will refer to it as the same car as when it was new, intuition tells us that this is not the case. In fact, as stated earlier, remove the wheels, the motor, the seats, and the body, and the result is no longer a 1957 Chrysler; it is not even a car. To go still further, imagine adding other parts to the original chassis, such that the result(God forbid) is a1972Volkswagen Beetle! There was no continuity of essence between the two vehicles; each is nothing more than a collection of parts (my apologies to VW lovers).Try to do the same kind of thought experiment on a human being. Remove an arm or a leg from John Doe, and he remains a person, in fact, the same person. You can amputate all of John's extremities and even remove many internal organs; as long as he remains alive, his substance will never change. You can even “add new parts,” by transplanting organs from other persons, yet John Doe will never become James Smith; his substance is not defined by his component parts. He will always remain the same person.…Naturalism has its greatest difficulty here. To hold to a property-thing view of persons is to deny the commonsense understanding of personal continuity, with a host of attendant problems for law and morality.…I might add that this view is also compatible with biblical teaching on the image of God. It allows us to explore the way human beings resemble the Divine (rationality, volition, social nature, etc.), while helping us to avoid the dangers of a strictly functional definition. On this view, the image of God is intrinsic to the nature of persons. Thus, Scripture teaches the value of man from the womb, whereas intuition and philosophy help us to affirm that such valuation begins at conception.The philosophical idea of a human being as substance arises out of a broader philosophical principle, that of substance dualism. Substance dualism holds that there is an entity called a soul, and that the mind is a faculty of the soul. Body and soul (mind) are functionally holistic, which means that the two entities are deeply integrated and functionally interdependent. Yet they are ontologically separate, which means that the soul can exist independently of the body. This allows for a personal existence after death (Moreland & Rae, 2000). Another implication of this idea is that if personhood begins at conception, then that is when the soul originates as well.The Original Plan Was Good but then…the FallAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God's original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rests. Creation is as intended so God may stop to rule overall. With that in mind, Richter concludes:In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God's first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God's design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh's sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God's great gift under God's ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.Then Richter makes the connection to the repeating theme of the entire book of Genesis: covenant.You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord's authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)This was Adam and Eve's perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God's perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God's perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God's perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.God's perfect plan (and humanity's perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco's old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan's hand.”16 God's original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.Conclusion—A Personal NoteWhen I read Genesis, I am astounded. I am not attempting to be overly dramatic or sentimental, but Genesis is so true I can hardly believe it. It paints a picture I cannot deny: Nature is just that. Yet it is curiously intelligible. But it is not divine. The divine things, like goodness, seem to transcend nature but not be less real than it. If nothing else, goodness seems more real. Whereas nature could not exist, goodness seems necessary. Man seems to be like nature but also somewhat divine. Something about man is not like the animals or anything else. Man and nature seem beautiful, yet both seem broken. Is this not truly our experience?

Inspired by one of our favorite movies, where the plot revolves around one town's cult-like obsession with “the greater good,” we discuss the pro-abortion side's rationalizations for legalized abortion and their belief on how it supports “the greater good.” Their "Greater Good" Arguments We Cover:Greater Good for women's health?Greater Good for the economy?Greater Good for the disabled?Greater Good to solve “unwanted children”? Links Mentioned:Billboard outside Orlando airport warns travelers of DeSantis' anti-abortion policy -Florida PhoenixFact Sheet: Reasons For Abortion - Charlotte Lozier InstituteWomen Betrayed Section of LifeDynamics.comPro-Life America Podcast Episode 57: CDC - A Snake Pit of AgendasYellen says ending abortion access would be 'damaging' to U.S. economy, women - ReutersUnderstanding why women seek abortions in the US - BMC Women's HealthGruber confirms eugenics plot of abortion detailed in Maafa 21- Life DynamicsThe Racial Targeting Report - Life DynamicsPro-Life America Episode 46: The Alarming Decline of Birth Rates WorldwideAbortion: 6 Impacts on the Economy - NewsmaxPatricia Heaton: ‘Iceland isn't eliminating Down syndrome—they are just killing everyone who has it.' - America MagazineCanadian veteran offered assisted suicide after asking for wheelchair help - Catholic News AgencyLime 5: By Mark CrutcherRate & Review Our Podcast Have a topic you want to see discussed on the show? [Submit it here.]To learn more about what Life Dynamics does, visit: https://lifedynamics.com/about-us/Support Our Work 

Joseph Fletcher (Wicked / 101 Dalmations) returns to co-host The West End Frame Show!Andrew and Joseph discuss The Secret Life Of Bees (Almedia) and Animal (Park Theatre) as well as the latest news about the Tony nominations, Wicked movie leaks, Mamma Mia! I Have A Dream, MusicalCon and lots more.Joseph is a deaf dancer and actor. He was in the ensemble of Wicked (Apollo Victoria) for four years between 2015 and 2019 and later returned for the musical's 15th anniversary. He appeared in The Snowman in the West End and on tour across the UK and internationally and has also performed in various productions for Deaf Men Dancing. Joseph was a dancer for the London 2012 Paralympics Opening Ceremony and was cast in the 2019 UK tour of the Regent's Park production of To Kill A Mockingbird.Last year Joseph appeared in the world premiere of the 101 Dalmatians musical at the Regent's Park Open Air Theatre. He's currently taking a sabbatical from performing and is a Swing Dresser for the West End production of Moulin Rouge. Follow Joseph on social media: @josephjfletcher  Hosted by Andrew Tomlins. @AndrewTomlins32  Thanks for listening! Email: andrew@westendframe.co.uk Visit westendframe.co.uk for more info about our podcasts.  

Joseph Fletcher (Wicked / 101 Dalmatians Musical) co-hosts The West End Frame Show!Andrew & Joseph discuss Les Misérables (Sondheim Theatre) as well as the latest news about The Oscars, the Dirty Dancing usher who joined the musical's cast, Ben Stiller and lots more.Joseph is a deaf dancer and actor, widely celebrated for his run in the West End production of Wicked. He appeared in The Snowman in the West End and on tour across the UK and internationally. He was a dancer for the London 2012 Paralympics Opening Ceremony and was cast in the 2019 UK tour of the Regent's Park production of To Kill A Mockingbird.Joseph has also performed various productions for Deaf Men Dancing.Joseph appeared in the West End production of Wicked between 2015 and 2019, and later returned to the show in 2021 for the musical's post-lockdown reopening and 15th anniversary.He is soon to appear in the world premiere of the 101 Dalmatians musical at the Regent's Park Open Air Theatre this summer in the ensemble and 1st cover Pongo head puppet and 2nd cover Perdi head puppet. Follow Joseph on social media: @josephjfletcher  Hosted by Andrew Tomlins. @AndrewTomlins32Thanks for listening! Email: andrew@westendframe.co.uk Visit westendframe.co.uk for more info about our podcasts. 

In a letter to Robert Hooke in 1675, Isaac Newton wrote: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”. The phrase is understood to mean that if Newton had been able to discover more about the universe than others, then it was because he was working in the light of discoveries made by fellow scientists, either in his own time or earlier. I stand on the shoulders of John Shelby Spong and he stood on the shoulders of John A T Robinson, an English New Testament scholar, author and the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, his friend and mentor. Robinson stood on the shoulders of Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and situational ethicist Joseph Fletcher, when he published a highly controversial book in 1963, Honest to God. Find out more: https://aucklandunitarian.org.nz/in-memoriam-of-my-mentor-john-shelby-spong/

The French call it l'esprit d'escalier—which means something like ‘the wit of the staircase'. It's that clever thing you wished you'd said but only thought of after the conversation was over. After last week's post on faith, I had two of these moments—one I thought of myself and one pointed out by a friend. After a comment from a friend, I really wished I'd made more of the fact that ‘faith in a word of promise' is the character of the Christian life because it is the character of the God we relate to. He is the covenant-making, promising, speaking God, and so the primary way we relate to him is by accepting and trusting his word. I kind of implied this at various points in last week's post, but never actually came out and said it (which leaves me shaking my head on the staircase).Making the connection between God as a speaker and our response of faith is important because it helps us discern false versions of how the Christian life unfolds. It helps us see, for example, that Christian experience is not mystical (where we feel our way towards a wordless force or power); nor is the Christian life lived by sight (neither in the need to see miraculous signs, nor in representing God visually); nor is it a prosperity cult (where God is a capricious non-communicative power that you have to please in order to be blessed). The God of the Bible is personal and verbal, and that's why the primary way we relate to him is by trusting what he says. And by talking to him. That's the second thing I wish I'd included in last week's post—and thought of almost immediately after I pressed ‘Publish Now'. Possibly the most important implication of ‘faith' as the foundational virtue of the Christian life is prayer. Prayer is faith put into words. It's our trust in God verbalized in the midst of life—as we call on him, make our requests to him, cast our cares on him, and generally express the fact that we depend upon him for everything. And so faith is strengthened as we hear the word of God and as we exercise our faith in prayer. (I'm hoping to turn these posts into a little book about the Christian life in due course, and so these staircase thoughts won't be completely wasted.) But enough apologies about last week. Time to think about the second virtue of the three—love. And because love is more complicated than it first appears, it's going to take two Payneful Truths to cover it even moderately well. Here's part 1.The two lovesI'm lovin' it. Love your work. Love what you've done to your hair. I love my wife. I love golf and lazy Saturday mornings. What's love, but a second-hand emotion? If ‘faith' is a saggy, middle-aged word that has put on too much weight around the middle,  what are we going to say about ‘love'? It's so bloated with meanings, associations and cliched usages, we hardly recognise it any more.  Perhaps this is why we don't talk as much these days about ‘love' as the summary and capstone of Christian living—even though the Bible does repeatedly. Maybe it just feels too vague and soppy, like a soft-focus picture of puppies on a 1 Corinthians 13 poster. In fact, even if we do want to be biblical and talk more about love, 1 Corinthians 13 illustrates our problem. Just what is ‘love' in this passage? We're given lots of adjectives—that love is patient and kind, and not arrogant or rude or resentful. We're told what love does (rejoices with the truth, bears all things, and so on) and what it doesn't do (boast or insist on its own way). But what sort of thing is love itself? We're fond of saying that love is an action, not a feeling—and given the general romanticisation of love in our culture, that's a fair enough corrective. But love is not really reducible to an ‘action' in 1 Corinthians 13. Love is certain things, and does certain things. It drives action, and is seen in action, but it is not simply an action.Then again, we also wouldn't say from 1 Corinthians 13 that love was primarily a feeling or a sentiment, since feelings don't act as such—they just are.  So love seems to be something else. Perhaps it is a description of attitude or character. For example, when we say that someone is ‘laid back', we're describing something about that person that sums them up—their habitually relaxed way of acting, their easy-going orientation to life in general, their chilled way of responding to things. Is that what ‘love' is—a cumulative description of someone's habitual way of being and acting? Is it a description of ‘character'? That seems a bit closer, and to fit with 1 Corinthians 13 a bit better. But there are still problems. For example, a description of someone's character is a summary seen from the outside and after the fact. It's an evaluation of how we observe someone acting and behaving over time. I judge you to be laid-back because of certain things I've repeatedly seen you do. But what are those ‘certain things' in relation to love? What sort of actions (repeated over time) would lead me to describe you as loving? What, in other words, is the defining characteristic of an action, the repeated performance of which might lead me to describe you as having a ‘loving' character? Defining what ‘love' actually means or requires turns out to be quite a bit trickier than first appears (as Love Actually itself illustrates, in the confused claptrap of its sentimentality). And we are hardly the first people ever to notice this. In the history of Christian thought and ethics, there has been considerable debate about the nature of love (both God's love and ours). In particular, the debate has often been about the relationship between two kinds of love, captured in the two Greek words eros and agape. Is love fundamentally a desire or longing for something good (eros)? Or is love primarily an unconditional benevolence that acts for the sake of others, regardless of whether they are good (agape)? As gospel people, we are immediately drawn to the second alternative. True Christ-like love, we would say, loves the unlovable. God's love for us is not drawn forth by our goodness or lovableness. In fact, quite the opposite—God's love is spontaneous and uncaused by us. God's love is seen in giving his Son to die for his enemies, for those who are dead in sin.The Lutheran theologian Anders Nygren is well-known for having argued that this agape-love of God is true Christian love, and is the antithesis of eros-style love. Eros is a desire for something that I value. Eros sees something it regards as good, and is drawn to it, longs for it, desires it. Eros, argued Nygren, is inevitably self-centred. It is sub-Christian. True agape-love, according to Nygren, doesn't correspond to the goodness or value of its object. It creates that goodness and value by loving it unconditionally—God's love for sinners being the prime example.So far, so good, we might think. But there are problems. What about our love for God—the great and first commandment? Does our love for God have no relation to the goodness of God? Do we just graciously decide to love God unconditionally, as if there is nothing good about God himself that calls forth our love? That can't be right. Or for that matter, what of other good things we love in the world—a husband's love for his wife, for example? Does my love for Ali have nothing to do with any qualities she possesses? I must of course seek to lay down my life for her, as Christ does for the church, regardless of whether she deserves it at any given moment. But when I tell Ali that I love her, should I add, “Of course, there is nothing at all objectively good or attractive about you that makes me say that—it's just my gracious decision to love an otherwise unlovable object”? This doesn't sound right either (and would very likely result in cold shoulder and burnt tongue for dinner for quite some time). We can see why Nygren wants to make love independent of wanting or desiring ‘the good' (because that seems to be how God loves us), but his approach isn't an adequate explanation of love as a whole. In fact, if we over-emphasize the spontaneous, unconditional nature of love, and say that love has nothing to do with the goodness of its object, then we find other problems emerging. ‘Situation ethics', for example. This approach to ethical thinking (propounded by Joseph Fletcher among others) suggests that a benevolent love for others should be the driving force of our morality, not rules or laws of behaviour. It's a very modern and recognizable ethic—just do whatever love drives you to do in the situation. So if you judge that it would be more loving to leave your marriage (in which you are both unhappy), and shack up with someone else, with a net total increase in love and joy all round, then go for it. Don't let an old-fashioned ‘thou shalt not' stand in your way. The problem with ‘situation ethics' is that making unconditional love the sole criteria for action just kicks the can down the road. My intention to love is all well and good, but how that is expressed depends on more than the intention alone. It requires me making judgements about the situation and what sort of action would be loving action here and now. It requires us, in other words, to think about what ‘the good' would be in this situation, not just about my motivation to be loving.Love, in other words, cannot entirely exist within me (within the subject), as an undifferentiated beam of kindness or affection that flows out onto everyone and everything around me. It must also have some reference to its object—to ‘a good' that we're perceiving or seeking in the thing or person that we're loving. Love does have some connection with seeking ‘the good', and therefore with ‘desire'.   But then that throws us back on the problem of God's love for un-good people like us, his gracious, self-sacrificial love for the undeserving. And how does all this talk about the nature of love relate to faith? Faith is the foundational virtue of the Christian life (as we've seen), and is ‘worked out' in love (as Gal 5:6 says). How does that work? What is it about love that makes it dependent in some way on faith? Well, dear reader, so many questions. But having (hopefully) helped you see the problems, and cleared some of the ground, we might be ready for some answers … in next week's Payneful Truth. PSWe've skated over some deep waters in today's post, and missed out some interesting examples and byways. For example, the idea of love being more about desire has made a bit of a comeback in recent times. Writers like Charles Taylor and James KA Smith have argued that we are driven far more by our desires than by knowledge and rationality, and that (accordingly) people will come to love God not through preaching and rationality and arguments, but through a deep, sub-rational change in what they want. A new and growing love for God will be achieved (Smith suggests) not through rational persuasion or words but through being ‘schooled' in a new set of desires, through the habits of Christian worship and liturgy. We'll come to love new things (i.e. God) by practising wanting and loving them over time. There is some truth in this (as well as significant problems). It's true that our desires and our knowledge or reason often work in different directions. We are much more than thinking machines. And we are fallen and complicated, and don't always respond to rationality—in fact, we are often driven by desires or preferences that we can't easily explain, or that run counter to what we know to be good and true. But what Romans 7 describes as a wretched state—of our desires and our knowledge working in different directions—Smith seems to accept as the unchangeable norm. The sword of the Spirit (the word of God) seems powerless to make any impression on the desire-dominated human heart. The best we can hope for is to train Christians like circus animals to want something different.   And of course that ‘something different' is not contentless, just as desire is never contentless. It is always and inevitably based on some perception, no matter how inarticulate, of something good and desirable. And if the thing desired is a person—who is only revealed or known as he speaks—then desire or longing for that person can never be separated from listening to him and knowing him as he really is. (Incidentally—how surprising that a liberal Catholic like Charles Taylor should come up with a theory of love and knowledge of God that looks like this, and that ends up with the practices of the church being the mediating power that really changes me. This is hardly shocking. What is more surprising is how many Reformation types have embraced him.)But I get ahead of myself. More on love and knowledge and how the gospel is the foundation of love … next time. I was very tempted to use a Tina Turner image for this week's post (‘What's love got to do with it?'), but couldn't find one that was suitable for a Christian newsletter. And then searched for images illustrating ‘two loves' and found lots of LGBT pics. So I settled for this one, the Alan Rickman character in Love Actually, who gets into trouble because of ‘two loves'. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.twoways.news/subscribe

A new MP3 sermon from The Bahnsen Project is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: 19 - Conflicting Ethical Duties: Joseph Fletcher and Situationalism (19 of 20) Subtitle: Situational Ethics Speaker: Greg L. Bahnsen Broadcaster: The Bahnsen Project Event: Teaching Date: 6/11/2021 Bible: Matthew 22:37-40; Psalm 1 Length: 48 min.

A new MP3 sermon from The Bahnsen Project is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: 19 - Conflicting Ethical Duties: Joseph Fletcher and Situationalism (19 of 20) Subtitle: Situational Ethics Speaker: Greg L. Bahnsen Broadcaster: The Bahnsen Project Event: Teaching Date: 6/11/2021 Bible: Matthew 22:37-40; Psalm 1 Length: 48 min.

As a youth growing up in Washington D.C., Eric Johnson found a place of belonging within the skateboarding community, but his identity as a black skateboarder put him into a circumstance that almost cost him his life.Director Joseph Fletcher is in conversation as he chats about the making of this short documentary with collaborator and star Eric Johnson. Playing at the SPORTS DOCUMENTARY Festival this Thursday (today) all day for FREE. Go to the exclusive link HERE. Follow WILDsound Podcasts on all social media channels: @wildsoundpodSubmit to the festival anytime via FilmFreeway: https://filmfreeway.com/WILDsoundFilmandWritingFestivalSubscribe via Twitter: https://twitter.com/wildsoundfest

The Bay Area is known for great oysters, but the ones grown locally are mostly from up in Marin County. San Francisco Bay used to have a thriving population of native oysters and Bay Curious listener Joseph Fletcher wants to know if they'll ever make a comeback. Additional Reading: The Bay Waters Once Teemed With Oysters. What Happened? The Wild Oyster Project Reported by Chloe Veltman. Bay Curious is made by Katrina Schwartz, Suzie Racho and Katie McMurran. Additional support from Erika Aguilar, Jessica Placzek, Kyana Moghadam, Paul Lancour, Carly Severn, Ethan Lindsey, Vinnee Tong and Don Clyde.

Welcome back to season 2 of The Business of Show Business. On today's I am joined by my long time friend Joseph Fletcher. Me and Joseph trained at college together and I am so proud of the career he has had. As a hearing impaired performer he has not let his disability stop him. Some of his career credits include Deaf Men Dance, Closing ceremony of the 2012 Paralympics and West End musical Wicked. Time code: 1: 04 Interview starts 2:20 When did you start performing ? "Jealousy got me into the business" 3:51 Obstacles Joe faces with being hearing impaired 4:14 "The biggest obstacle is trying to convince people that the job is going to get done" 5:45 Confidence in having a disability 6:30 "We are always told what we need to improve or work on we are never told what we excel in" 7:06 "You have to showcase your best self" 8: 02 Joe's yellow brick road to Wicked "Musical theatre was never the dream"  14:24 How do you find another dream when you have achieved yours? 15:58 "Stepping into the uncomfortable places in our business" 17:33 The power of saying no 19:29 The value of our skills 20:35 Opportunities that have presented themselves because Joseph is hearing impaired 23: 27 "I now use my singing calls as an opportunity to have a conversation about my disability and opening up the room for people to ask questions" 25:02 "We are all looking for our representation. We go to the theatre to try and see ourselves on stage, and I don't see myself on stage, specifically for the West End, I don't see myself, so I need to help pave the way for other people like me" 27:18 What advice Joseph would give his younger self 27:58 "I wished someone had said to me that even though I am confined by boundaries, that they are not the walls – that's not your max, you can push your boundaries out, they are not solid" 29: 32 Motto or quote Joe lives by "Just keep it simple – we get so wrapped up in today's world, we are so influenced by that and we forget that it doesn't have to be so complicated" 30:14 "When I get stressed, I spell the word backwards and it spells dessert, pop that kettle on and have some cake" 30:58 "When you can, go above and beyond" 32:30 Social media in the arts 38:17 Where you can find Joseph online. https://twitter.com/josephjfletcher https://www.instagram.com/josephjfletcher/ https://www.instagram.com/josephjfletcherphotography/ Don't forget to subscribe and leave your review on Apple Podcasts

In this episode, we finally reveal the name of Patrick “No Compromise with Evil” Wyett's upcoming book! Darkened Pulpits is a book that will reveal the apostasy of Social Justice and show its Marxist and theological liberalism roots. Names will be named in Darkened pulpits and here are a few of the hireling to watch out for Russell Moore, Rick Warren, Joseph Fletcher, David Platt, and many more! Be watching for more information on Darkened Pulpits and put it on your Christmas List! Pre-Order your copy of Social Injustice today and use the code: SAM or PATRICK to get a free Audio version! http://socialinjusticebook.com For more information on The Shining Light Podcast: Website - http://theshininglightministries.com Facebook - http://facebook.com/TheShingLightPodcast Twitter - http://twitter.com/shininglightpc For more information on The GK Podcast Network: Website - http://gatekeepersonline.com Facebook - http://facebook.com/thegkonline Twitter - http://twitter.com/thegkonline Parler - https://parler.com/profile/thegkonline YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/thegkpodcastnetwork

In this episode Pastor Sam interviews Trevor Loudon about the upcoming film Enemies within the Church. Trevor gives a history of Marxism in the church and outlines the influence of Henry Ward and Joseph Fletcher. Trevor tells how it is the work of Joseph Fletcher that brought us Situational Ethics, a dangerous ethic that is destroying the world today. The interview finishes with Trevor giving a report on what is happening around the globe and our national security. For more information on The Shining Light Podcast, please visit theshininglightministries.com For more information on The GK Podcast Network, please visit gatekeepersonline.com Follow The Shining Light Podcast on Twitter at twitter.com/shininglightpc Follow The GK Podcast Network on Twitter at twitter.com/thegkonline

Matt talks with Willi Carlisle and Joseph Fletcher about their show A Confederate Widow in Hell! Check out the Twin Cities Horror Festival for more details! The post TCHF Fun Size Minisode – A Confederate Widow in Hell appeared first on Horror Show Hot Dog.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked The Panpsycast will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity. All content has been distributed freely, and solely for educational purposes. The bibliography is organised by the authors first name, or the name that was used to refer to the source throughout the audiobook. Alister E. McGrath (2001) Christian Theology an Introduction. Alister E. McGrath (2001) The Christian Theology Reader. 10.2 Theophilus of Antioch on Conditional Immortality. 10.10 Augustine on the Christian Hope. 10.11 Gregory the Great on Purgatory. 10.16 Jonathan Edwards on the Reality of Hell. 10.17 John Wesley on Universal Restoration. 10.18 Rudolf Bultmann on Existential Interpretation of Eschatology.           Bertrand Russell (1957) Why I’m Not a Christian. Brian Davies (2004) An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion: a guide and anthology. Catholic Theology Online – Accessed: 05.07.2018 at [Catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part3sup.php?q=584]. CBC (1959) Bertrand Russell on Religion [Online Video] - Accessed: 05.07.2018 at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4FDLegX9s]. Church of England (2010) Sharing the Gospel of Salvation. Christopher Hitchens (2007) God is Not Great. Daniel Dennett (2006) Breaking the Spell. David F. Ford (1989) The Modern Theologians Volume 1. Chapter 2 Dietrich Bonhoeffer by John D. Godsey. Chapter 9 Karl Rahner by J.A. DiNoia OP. David F. Ford (1989) The Modern Theologians Volume 2. Chapter 12 Feminist Theology by Ann Loades. Chapter 9 Latin American Liberation Theology by Rebecca S. Chopp. David F. Ford (2011) The Future of Christian Theology. David Hume (1748) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1937) The Cost of Discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1955/2005) Ethics. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1959) Letters and Papers from Prison. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1965) No Rusty Swords. Eric Metaxas (2010) Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Matyr, Prophet, Spy. Guardian.com 'Pope Benedict - Condoms Will Make the Aids Crisis Worse' - Accessed 06.03.18 at [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids]. Hendrick Kraemer (1938) Christian message in a non-Christian world. Immanuel Kant (1772) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Immanuel Kant (1784) What is Enlightenment? Independent.com 'Pope Francis - God is not a man with a beard and a magic wand' - Accessed 05.04.18 at [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-according-to-the-pope-and-there-are-non-believing-vicars-9824179.html]. Independent.com 'Dr John Sentamu: Next stop Canterbury?' - Accessed 06.05.18 at [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/dr-john-sentamu-next-stop-canterbury-7624760.html]. Jean-Paul Sartre (1944) No Exit. John Hick (1973) God and The Universe of Faith. John Hick (1976) Myth of God Incarnate. John Hick (1983) The Second Christianity. John Locke (1689) Two Treatises of Government. Jordan B. Peterson (2018) Interview with Cathy Newman (Channel 4) - Accessed 04.04.18 at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54]. Joseph Fletcher (1966) Situation Ethics. Karl Barth (1932) Church Dogmatics, Volume 1, part 1. Karl Barth (1932) Church Dogmatics, Volume 2, part 2. Karl Marx (1867) Das Kapital . Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels (1848) Communist Manifesto. Karl Rahner's Inclusivism - Accessed 06.07.18 at [http://www.philosopherkings.co.uk/Rahner.html]. Manfred B. Stegar (2009) Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Mel Thomson (2010) Understand Ethics: Teach Yourself. Michael B. Wilkinson and Michael Wilcockson (2017) Religious Studies for OCR A Level Year 1. Michael B. Wilkinson and Michael Wilcockson (2017) Religious Studies for OCR A Level Year 2. Leonardo Boff (1994) Introduction to Liberation. Libby Ahluwalia (2018) Oxford A Level Religious Studies for OCR Revision Guide. Libby Ahluwalia and Robert Bowie (2017) Oxford A Level Religious Studies for OCR Revision Guide Year 2. Nick Page (2013) The Nearly Infallible History of Christianity. Peter Vardy & Paul Grosch (1994) The Puzzle of Ethics. Pope John Paul II (1990) Redemptoris Missio. Reza Aslan (2013) Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazerath. Richard Dawkins (2006) The God Delusion. Robin Gill (2001) The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics. Chapter 1 Making Moral Decisions Rowan Williams. Chapter 2 The authority of scripture in Christian Ethics Gareth Jones. Chapter 3 The Old Testament and Christian Ethics John Rogerson. Chapter 4 The Gospels and Christian Ethics Timothy P. Jackson. Chapter 6 Natural Law and Christian Ethics Stephen J. Pope. Sam Harris (2004) The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason. Scripturalreasoning.org. Sigmund Freud (1923) The Ego and the Id. Sigmund Freud (1927) The Future of an Illusion. Simone de Beauvoir (1949) The Second Sex. 'Swinburne on the Soul' - Accessed 04.05.18 at [People.ds.cam.ac.uk/dhm11/Swinburne.html]. Steven Pinker (2011) The Better Angels of our Nature. Steven Pinker (2018) Enlightenment Now. The Holy Bible – King James Version. The Holy Bible – New International Version. William Paley (1802) Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Wired.com - ‘1 Million Workers. 90 Million iPhones. 17 Suicides. Who’s to blame?’ - Accessed 01.01.18 at [https://www.wired.com/2011/02/ff-joelinchina]. Yujin Nagasawa (2017) Miracles: A Very Short Introduction.

What has happened to us? We live in an age where ego and emotion are more important than virtue and values. An age where personal preference outweighs personal worth and “I want it now” trumps integrity. We live in an age where absolutes aren’t (unless we decide they fit into our personal plan) and standards are only something to customize and remodel to our personal satisfaction. Ours is an age where the ancient principles of sin and objective morality are being relegated to the trash heap of history. So, what are we supposed to do? Should we go along with the flow of thoughts and emotions that are reshaping our social structure? Should we abandon what is considered to be the old and worn out moral thinking of the past and embrace the new and vibrant personally-based principles of the present? For me, most decisions start out in a very black and white fashion. Something is either right or it is wrong, so figure out which it is and get on with it. Now I realize that life is not made up of such clear-cut and easy-to-navigate roads. No, life is made up of roads that curve – they make you adjust your thinking - and roads that have hairpin turns making you go in the opposite direction you started from. Then there are the roads that become gravel and filled with pot holes, making you navigate far more slowly and carefully. Finally, there are roads that end in the weeds, that make you stop and reconsider everything because it looks like you are lost. There are two very basic ways to figure these roads out. The first I mentioned already is using a well-defined approach and trying to apply it to whatever the road might be. The second way is to use what is called “situation ethics.” This is a theory founded by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960’s and explained in his book Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Basically, Fletcher says to take a nuanced approach to the experiences of life, weighing the circumstances of each experience against the best possible outcome for that experience. His criteria for this process is to have noble and benevolent love for those involved so the outcome is in everyone’s very best interest. An impressive approach, thoughtful and engaging – but is it the right way to go? Actually as I see it, I don’t think so. By very definition, situation ethics implies that what is fundamentally right must be subject to being wrong when one deems it necessary. Some have said that Jesus himself used a situation ethics approach, as he mixed with those considered undesirable and he taught things that the spiritual leaders of his day saw as direct contradictions to the Jewish Law. So, what about that? Did he? Check out our October 23, 2017 podcast, "Are we SURE Sin is Really Sinful?" and find out. Follow along with us as we reason through examples, circumstances and principles to find footing in our decision making. It just might help!

I will be breaking down the failure that is the 2015 Cincinnati Reds with my man Joseph Fletcher.  The topics to be covered include: What has gone wrong for the Reds?How can a team with an ace like Johnny Cueto (before he was traded) and the best closer in baseball in Arodis Chapman (he may be traded soon) suck so bad?Should the Reds have kept Dusty Baker?

The Martian attacks in “War of the Worlds” have inspired books, films, television programs, and that infamous '38 radio broadcast that terrified many of its listeners. So what more is there to say? Play directors Joseph Fletcher and Aradhana Tiwari say, Just wait! Performed by Play the Moment theatre troupe.