FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

IMAGO DEI AND ITS EMERGING MEANING: J. RICHARD MIDDLETON’S PROGRAM IN HERMENEUTICAL DIALOGUE

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR JAMES T. BUTLER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE OT534: OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

BY CHRISTOPHER MARTIN THE

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA March 12, 2008

IMAGO DEI AND ITS EMERGING MEANING: J. RICHARD MIDDLETON’S PROGRAM IN HERMENEUTICAL DIALOGUE

Introduction Over the centuries, there has been much ado regarding the possible significance(s) of the imago Dei—so many opinions, in fact, that John Goldingay comments pessimistically on the unlikeliness of our ever getting “behind all that interpretation to its inherent meaning.”1 Yet no biblically-normed theological anthropology can afford to neglect Gen 1:26-27 and the significance of the imago—whatever significance may therein be. It seems natural to assume that one’s method of approach would shape and inform whatever conclusions one may draw in the end. But there is, in fact, an even broader parameter than methodological approach that colors one’s interpretations—namely, the contemporary context in which the exegete/hermeneutist is situated. We might assume that, just as one’s historical/religious/political/familial/economic profile would inform (yet not determine!) one’s approach, such facets of one’s own story or background certainly affect one’s hermeneutical aims. Postmodern concerns have much to offer to the discipline and discussion of theological anthropology; one recent imago study in particular

1

J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), outside-rear cover; Goldingay continues, “Middleton’s fascinating book has made me think again.” See p.2 of the current paper, regarding the reason for my paradigmatic use of Middleton’s study as reflecting the contemporary need for a contextual expression of theological anthropology. THE-1

THE-2

will serve as paradigm for the rest of this paper’s considerations.2 Rather than presenting a survey and subsequent appraisal of the recent trends in Old Testament scholarship concerning imago study, this paper will take another track. First, I will present an analysis and treatment of the theological anthropology of J. Richard Middleton, as crystallized in his own imago study, The Liberating Image.3 Second, I will “moderate” a discussion between Middleton and (primarily) Walter Brueggemann. Lastly, I will summarize the opinions of both traditional (Brueggemann4) and emerging (Middleton) programs, in order to accent the importance of the dialectical/dialogical with regard to imago study (in specific) and Old Testament theology (in general). It is hoped that, by contrasting the programs represented by both these figures, we may embrace and move toward the opportunities that such a dialectic dialogue can offer. All this will be done with the goal of enriching the discussion that has as its aim a biblically-based theological anthropology.

Analysis of Middleton’s Program5 In the same vein as his influences, Middleton’s concern is for understanding the Bible on

2

3

4

5

As such, this paper will combine elements of the ‘book report’ and the ‘theological topic’ criteria for this term paper. Following the analysis of Middleton’s book, the topic of the imago Dei will be further considered as conversation partner in the midst of theological discussion. Middleton, The Liberating Image. The bulk of the current paper will be reserved for this analysis.

Though, to be fair, Brueggemann’s own body of work may be described as having been “emerging” over time (perhaps, even corresponding to what one might call “theological fads”). For my purposes, he serves as exemplar of the old-guard of 19th and 20th c. OT scholarship by the simple fact that he remains quite tentative in accepting (e.g.) Middleton’s claims. Brueggemann cannot be faulted for this, however, and remains an available example for our present aims. See Middleton’s “Is Creation Theology Inherently Conservative? A Dialogue with Walter Brueggemann.” Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 3 (1994): 257-77; as well as Brueggemann’s “Response to J. Richard Middleton.” Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 3 (1994): 279-89. This section is an adaption of my work submitted for the course, NS589: “The Human Person in New Testament Perspective” with Joel B. Green (Winter Quarter 2008); Christopher The, “Review of J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image” (book review, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008).

THE-3

its own terms—as both speaking authoritatively to its original contexts (notwithstanding our inability to say for sure what they may have been), as well as prophetically addressing various contemporary concerns throughout human history. It is with the aim of restoring to the Bible a culturally-relevant prophetic voice that Middleton undertakes his imago study. Structure of His Argument For Middleton, the issue of the imago Dei concerns biblical scholars and theologians, as well as ethicists (and by extension, even politicians).6 In this respect, he is anything but Brueggemann’s opposite! An overview of this book’s major divisions is, as follows: “The Meaning of the Image” (part 1) explores the potentiality of meaning for the imago Dei “in its immediate literary context and its wider symbolic world.”7 “The Social Context of the Image” (part 2) posits Mesopotamian culture as being the more plausible social context for the imago, vis-a-vis Egyptian culture (the position taken by some other notable OT/ANE scholars)— this provides backdrop to Middleton’s exegesis of Genesis 1 as being a watershed for theological and ethical significance. “The Ethics of the Image” (part 3) pushes further than mere questions about the imago to implications for such interpretive possibilities, with Middleton arguing for a liberating generosity in theological anthropology; in other words, humanity is to be understood in terms of being made in the liberating image of a generous God. It is then that, upon further consideration of its canonical primacy, the imago Dei emerges as becoming the programmatic prolegomena to God’s good news to the world. Importance of the Exegete’s Context In the first section, Middleton lays out recent concerns for interpreting the imago (ch.1)

6

Middleton, The Liberating Image, 10 (cf. part 3).

7

Ibid., 271.

THE-4

and explores the potentiality of meaning for such an overloaded term (ch.2). He dismisses the notion that Scripture is itself silent on the interpretive possibilities for understanding the imago Dei—an assumption that has led other exegetes to construct superfluous, extrabiblical, hermeneutical frameworks. Interpretations of theological giants such as Augustine and Barth are regarded by Middleton as being evidently dependent “on theological paradigms and agendas derived from outside the Genesis text”—this approach must be reworked.8 Middleton pushes for interdisciplinary dialogue between systematic theology and biblical studies, which taken together would (hopefully) rid us of some dualistic and/or docetic assumptions about the merely spiritual aspect of the imago while also being mindful of the imago’s relevant socio-historical context(s) —all the while retaining an epistemic humility regarding inescapable subjectivity. According to Middleton, postmodernity charges us with the duty of conversing with the text; the faithful are to have charitable dialogue with God’s Word, which in its alterity, duly calls the interpreter into question.9 This is Middleton’s (and our) contemporary setting. Royal Language as Being Contextually Viable for Interpretation In considering the import of symbolic meanings that are co-textual/canonical with and contextual/socio-historical to Genesis 1, Middleton argues throughout the second chapter that the terms image and likeness both possess fluidity of meaning with regard to their semantic ranges, which overlap significantly—so much so, that a syntagmatic/paradigmatic approach (e.g., word

8

9

Ibid., 24; cf. Brueggemann’s own assessments nearly a decade earlier of recent OT hermeneutics, in his “The Loss and Recovery of Creation in Old Testament Theology.” Theology Today 53, no. 2 (July 1996): 177-90. Middleton, The Liberating Image, 40-42.

THE-5

study) will not be profitable.10 Rather, Middleton posits an intricate relationship of mutuality between image and rule.11 The aspect of rule is not the result or consequence of the imago but is rather the purpose of it, while the (royal?) “we”-language of Gen 1:27 suggests “a broad analogy between the cosmic king, his royal angelic courtiers, and his earthly human vice-regent.”12 Middleton points to the symbolic reserves of the canon itself (though, self-admittedly, in limited and focused fashion)—specifically, creative-act-via-fiat—as being portrayals of God’s supremacy in power and authority and covenantal loyalty between God and his “harmonious, well-functioning” creation.13 The metaphor of God as king, however, must not be subjected to our preconceptions of (fallen and fallible) human kingship: God’s kingly status is not derivative. Furthermore, the poetic beauty of Genesis 1 displays the divine artisan at work, carefully constructing a masterpiece of creation. These naturally beg the question of how God rules (answer: via generous invitation and cooperation) and what God makes (answer: creation as sanctuary for the divine). As such, the imago includes a cultic/priestly dimension of responsibility—not only to rule (i.e., a royal dimension), but also to mediate between Creator and creation as a whole. Subversiveness of the Imago Dei for the Milieus of Antiquity and Today Middleton then culls the literary and cultural legacies of prominent ANE socio-political

10

11

12

Middleton, The Liberating Image, 53-59.

13

Ibid., 65-70.

Equally unhelpful is the palpable influence of Karl Barth, who avers the aspects of gender in Gen 1:27 (i.e., maleness and femaleness) as being interpretive key; ibid., 21-24. For deeper, more focused reflections on the issue of gender in the Creation account (i.e., Gen 1-3), see Phyllis A. Bird, “Bone of My Bone, Flesh of My Flesh,” in Theology Today 50, no. 4 (January 1994): 521-34. However, Goldingay points out that “in third millennium-speak the word relationship is an allusive one—a warm word, but one with little content, like the [word] community. It leaves unexamined what sort of relationship obtains between God and humanity,” in his Old Testament Theology, Volume Two: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 518.

THE-6

powers—specifically Egypt and Assyria/Babylon—in order to find appropriate parallels with the biblical material, in hopes of finding a contextually-relevant hermeneutical lens with which one may begin to understand the imago Dei. Of note is the possibility of intersection between Genesis 1 and ANE custom, the royal practice of the latter being the setting up images or statues to represent the reigning monarchy in places where the king was physically absent.14 This leads to Middleton’s survey of both Egyptian and Mesopotamian royal ideologies, resulting in his opinion that Mesopotamia was likely the prominent influence in conceiving of the imago Dei doctrine. With regard to source critical issues, Middleton himself claims agnostic about the manner by which primeval history (i.e., Gen 1-11, in relation to the rest of the Tetrateuch—the patchwork quality therein being self-evident) actually came to be; furthermore, Middleton argues that rigidly restricting an understanding of the imago within an exilic/post-exilic framework is duly unwise, since (e.g., among other reasons) pre-exilic Israel would still have been prone to Assyrian or Babylonian influence via Sumero-Akkadian creation accounts, thereby making a strict exilic context all the more tentative.15 A summary of the surrounding cosmogonic myths yields a view of humanity that is lower than that of Israel: humankind’s telos restricts the meaning of human life to merely providing for the gods, via human work (thus alleviating the gods of their burdens on earth) and worship (thus elevating the status of the gods among their own cults). These cosmogonies culminate into theological-anthropological assertions, as well as propagandistic claims of divine authorization and appointment concerning political structures (i.e., ANE monarchial power). Thus, the assumption holds that ANE creation myths are seen as the foundation for ANE royal ideologies.

14

Ibid., 104-08.

15

Ibid., 140-45.

THE-7

Over against these oppressive values stand the liberating opportunities presented by the primeval history in Genesis 1-11—the possibility of liberation, being located in a democratized imaging (imagining?) of human beings on the part of the Creator God. Middleton avers that, by integrating certain aspects of the competing, oppressive ideologies, Genesis presents a subversive ideological critique regarding the abuses of power and hegemony, imposed by the surrounding ANE societies. One example of such subversion is the important distinction between Genesis and the wider ANE regarding the identity and importance of actors on the stage of world history. According to the other ANE cosmogonies, it is the deity that primarily acts in history; this cosmogonic ideology is subverted by the Genesis claim that God generously invites his human creation to act in history according to God’s divine purposes. Genesis’ primeval historical account, then, becomes a radical alternative for God’s people, with specific regard to the dangers of (1) the possibility of Israel’s surrender to those world powers as mere passive acquiescence and (2) the possibility of Israel’s violent, over-zealous retaliation against those political structures.16 Meaning of Imago Dei as Emerging from Context So Genesis affirms human dignity and posits that human agency is not something to be exploited by the deity but to be partnered with it. While God is sovereign, his rule (as extended via the imago) is not oppressive but liberating—and is so democratically, that is, all of humanity are intrinsically valuable by their being made in God’s likeness.17 So then, the “radical,

16

17

Ibid., 219-28.

For thoughts on the anthropological question of royal ontology as present in the psalter, cf. James L. Mays, “What Is a Human Being? Reflections on Psalm 8,” in Theology Today 50, no. 4 (January 1994): 511-20; especially his comments on p.518, in which the question of meaning for the vocational son (and daughter!) of Adam can be truly answered only in the particularity of a sovereign God.

THE-8

subversive potential” of the imago, vis-a-vis competing ANE ideologies, is included in the Creation account, in order “to ground a vision of human life that is alternative to unjust systems of power in the world”18—which Middleton wants to say is actually the reality, both for the circumstances in antiquity as well as for the socio-political milieu of our own day. In today’s parlance, the phrase is human rights, but for Scripture the truly significant (if also, not at all entirely understood) concept is that of being made in the image and likeness of God. Human rights abuses (our terms) is the disregard (blasphemy?) concerning those made in God’s likeness (Scripture’s terms—or else, Jas 3:9 loses its sting). God has purposed his creative act towards humanity in such a way that necessitates the inclusion of the imago Dei in the Creation account. It is in this way that Middleton sees the drama of the Tower of Babel as being the capstone of Genesis’ primeval history, which is then reinterpreted not (merely) as punishment for neglecting God’s word but as opportunity for humanity to fulfill its divine cultural mandates.19 God’s purposes still prevail; humanity is still invited. Middleton treats the ethical implications of his exegesis, first, by decrying the dominant opinion that inherent in Gen 6 is the creation-by-combat motif (ch.6), and second, by considering the inherent “primal generosity” belonging to God’s creative work (ch.7). Middleton outlines well the danger of retaining a creation-by-combat motif, since it does much harm to an understanding of humanity in God’s image—does God, then, form us to become violent images in the likeness of a warring God, who is ever detained in an ongoing conflict with primordial evil? Admittedly, texts like this do appear in the OT, and they must be confronted soberly (elsewhere); yet Middleton’s thesis is that this conflict-conqueror imagery is neither

18

Ibid., 11.

19

Middleton also considers these implications for an exilic interpretive scheme, in 228-31.

THE-9

demonstrated by the imago Dei nor by God’s historical dealings throughout Genesis’ primeval history. Perhaps a bit of circular logic can compliment Middleton’s logical argument: if we believe God to be good (in all the loaded quality of this term; we could substitute equally loaded terms, like generous or loving), we must must necessarily consider God’s shaping us to be in his likeness—as being good, or generous, or loving, or liberating. In fact, God’s invitation for us to join him in the perpetual seventh day of creation is an admirable theological claim to peace and cooperation. The imago Dei, therefore, is the biblical foundation for shalom and for basileia theou.

Hermeneutical Dialogue Regarding the Imago Dei In his commentary on Genesis, Brueggemann lays out certain key ideas or concepts for interpreting the first of our canonical books. The theological focus of Genesis, according to Brueggemann, is promise; the divine promise is revealed via God’s call (in creative act) and humanity’s story (in theological reflection)—and from these emerge a confession of faith that is “transformed, criticized, and extended each time it is told.”20 In any bibilcally-normed reflection on theological anthropology, it is the transformation, critique, and extension of our creed—in the “Maker of heaven and earth”—that is to be sought as living water, living word. With this in mind, we now consider the dialogue within which Middleton’s program is situated. Out of this conversation ought to emerge yet even deeper ways of talking about God and humanity—in the significance of the imago Dei.

20

Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 1-4. Illustrating the theological task, Brueggemann continues, “The creature’s proper mode of speech about creation is not description but lyric, not argument by poetry” (27-28). We would do well to remind ourselves of how humble our words are, so that terms such as emerging and meaning might still be useful to us, without becoming points of contention.

THE-10

Topic of Creation as Emerging Concern for Old Testament Theology21 Emerging out of the theological constructs of yesterday, current scholarship regarding the importance of the Doctrine of Creation may have harsh words for the suppression of Creation theology, under the pens of folks like Karl Barth, Gerhard von Rad, G. Ernest Wright, and their intellectual progeny. Brueggemann recognizes himself as having roots in those tradition and yet wishes to transcend the restrictive categories of the Confessing Church (led by Barth 22), who at one time needed to dismiss Creation theology because of the conversely subversive claims of German National Socialism. While (e.g.) the Barmen Declaration emerged rightly out of its context—faithfully offering a polemic for what it recognized as harmful interpretations of Genesis’ primeval history—today, our context demands more immediacy to concerns which are in no uncertain terms equally threatening to the (ever-)Confessing Church. In addition to the ways in which we have seen Middleton’s exegesis to be relevant to today’s culture, Brueggemann also sees three advantages in the direction the conversation is now headed: (1) this reconsideration of creation present new avenues for faith and science; (2) we are now able to consider the present ecological crisis that besets our world; (3) there is a more honest dealing with what humanity is—in living and dying, in Creation as well as Resurrection.23 It is not enough to merely posit that humankind is made in God’s image. What does that mean, concerning humanity? concerning divinity? How likely are we to find a satisfactory answer in looking only at Gen 1? Bird opines, “In fact, the work of interpreting the primary

21

22

23

For a clear and approachable outline of how the topic of creation has fallen away and has been rediscovered in recent manifestations of OT studies, again refer to Brueggemann’s “Loss and Recovery.” His distaste for any kind of natural theology or general revelation have been well-noted. What Brueggemann offers is a move from that paradigm to a newer (re-)consideration of Creation theology— exemplified by Middleton. Brueggemann, “Loss and Recovery,” 187-88.

THE-11

ontological statements extended through the entire canon—and beyond.”24 And yet, we must seek to understand the imago both cotextually with other parts of Scripture, as well as contextually in relation to our own circumstances in life. For example, the dangers of misinterpreting and carelessly extracting rule out of imago are self-evident and abundant. From a feminist perspective, Phyllis Bird sees the patriarchal hegemony of even scriptural witness (!) as being evidence that “[m]utuality is replaced by rule.”25 On the other hand, Brueggemann (a man!) comments, “The image [of God] images the creative power which invites, evokes, and permits. There is nothing here of coercive or tyrannical power, either for God or for humankind.”26 Both Bird and Brueggemann are seeking to achieve different things with these comments; thus, context cannot be neglected. Bird describes things as-they-are; Brueggemann, as-they-should-be. Middleton strikes a chord with both interpretations (though, admittedly, without particularly feminist conclusions). Hope for the Further Discerning of the Imago Dei So the ethics of the imago can be derived from a variety of place in the Creation account of Gen 1—first, in a proper theological statement concerning God (in his goodness or

24

25

26

Bird, 525. While her subject is Gen 2 and the gender-oriented questions to be asked therein, Bird’s point is equally as applicable to Gen 1—which must also be considered in concert with the rest of the biblical canon, though dimensions of this may naturally hedge themselves out (e.g., within the primeval history, within the OT canon, within the entirety of scriptural witness). Of some note is Bird’s comment, just preceding the above quote, in which the dialogue between Yahwistic and Priestly works may too enhance the discussion at hand, whether it be theological issues of gender or anthropological issues of being made in the divine likeness. Bird, 527. Again, while Gen 2 is her task, this observation remains germane for Gen 1. Cf. her comments to follow, in which an appeal to the imago seems, even for Bird, to be an opportune starting place (in order to begin to describe a genderless God)—but note her pessimism (but not acquiescence!) in being able to draw out feminine theological convictions from what is an “insufficient...deformed, as well as limited,” androcentric account of the world’s origins—notwithstanding the fact that it provides “an inexhaustible source for theological reflection...” (528). Brueggemann, Genesis, 32.

THE-12

sovereignty). Second, imago ethics is informed by the democratization and proliferation of that image, between primeval Man and Woman, from Adam and Eve’s generation to Noah’s family and beyond; the intrinsic imago emerges as a viable root for social ethics and communal sanctification. Third, the imago is nothing without its vocational element, and this relates humankind ethically to the world around it (in specific, to other living beings that the Lord God had made); some mileage can be expected out of this line of ethical thought, since vocation (in some sense) is a term that is relational—the vocational imago concerns itself with what humanity has been intended to become (tenders/keepers/shepherds); the vocational imago concerns itself with what humanity ought to see as mirror of what the divine was, is, and will become (savior, lover, king). As such, can there be any biblical way of describing a theological anthropology that does not also take into account the profundity of what the imago Dei can mean? Certainly, the imago Dei says something about humankind; certainly, the imago Dei says something about Godself. It is out of these conversations that such meaning may emerge.

WORKS CITED

Bird, Phyllis A. “Bone of My Bone, Flesh of My Flesh” Theology Today 50, no. 4 (January 1994): 521-34. Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. ________. “The Loss and Recovery of Creation in Old Testament Theology.” Theology Today 53, no. 2 (July 1996): 177-90. ________. “Response to J. Richard Middleton.” Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 3 (1994): 279-89. Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, Volume Two: Israel’s Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006. Mays, James L. “What Is a Human Being? Reflections on Psalm 8.” Theology Today 50, no. 4 (January 1994): 511-20. Middleton, J. Richard. “Is Creation Theology Inherently Conservative? A Dialogue with Walter Brueggemann.” Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 3 (1994): 257-77. ________. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005. The, Christopher. “Review of J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1.” Book review, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008.

THE-13

fuller theological seminary imago dei and its emerging ...

Mar 12, 2008 - hermeneutical frameworks. Interpretations of .... theology, under the pens of folks like Karl Barth, Gerhard von Rad, G. Ernest Wright, and their.

137KB Sizes 0 Downloads 224 Views

Recommend Documents

Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue - Fuller Theological Seminary
social imaginary of the masses.1 At the dawn of the new millennium, the collision of two commercial airliners ...... of sub-Saharan Africa as a good platform for the constructive ..... I had the privilege of listening to his lectures at the Arab Bapt

Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue - Fuller Theological Seminary
Adults who were abused by their parents need desperately to ...... es, hosting Islamic speakers to educate ... Claremont Presbyterian Church: “Adult community ...

Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue - Fuller Theological Seminary
on social activities such as trips, education, and employment. .... He holds a Master of Arts in Theological ... Seminary (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and Master.

Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue - Fuller Theological Seminary
Adults who were abused by their parents need ...... Fuller Seminary hosted the Third Evan- .... On our website, www.evangelicalinterfaith.com, you can: • Join the ...

fuller theological seminary prayer as evidence of faith
12 Moo, 181, where he continues, “Faith in 1:6-8...refers to a whole-hearted unwavering commitment to. God” (emphases original). 13 Moo, 182. 14 Martin, 216. 15 Martin, 212. 16 Cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with

luce library bulletin - Princeton Theological Seminary Library
associated with the Seminary; class photographs; and oversize materials removed from manuscript ... collection, though basic preserva- tion may be ... Current and back issues are available online. ... times a magnifying glass or a computer.

pdf-145\theological-reflections-the-collective-works-seminary ...
... the apps below to open or edit this item. pdf-145\theological-reflections-the-collective-works-seminary-portfolio-volume-1-by-mr-m-shannon-whaples.pdf.

[O646.Ebook] Download Ebook Imago Dei: A Study of C. G. Jung's ...
DOWNLOAD EBOOK : IMAGO DEI: A STUDY OF C. G. JUNG'S PSYCHOLOGY ... It will be the best partner to enhance your company as well as pastime.

Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Disease and Soil Transmitted ...
... a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Disease and Soil Transmitted Helminths Program.pdf. Emerging and Re-emerging I

CARTE DEI NUMERI.pdf
Page 1 of 11. CARTE DEI NUMERI. Paola de Marco. Page 1 of 11. Page 2 of 11. UNO. uno. Page 2 of 11. Page 3 of 11. due. DUE. 2. Page 3 of 11. Page 4 of 11. tre. TRE. 3. Page 4 of 11. Page 5 of 11. QUATTRO. quattro 4. Page 5 of 11. Main menu. Displayin

Mashup-Religion-Pop-Music-And-Theological-Invention.pdf ...
Page 1 of 2. Download ~-~-~-oo~~ eBook Mashup Religion: Pop Music And Theological Invention. (-EPub-) Mashup Religion: Pop Music And Theological. Invention. MASHUP RELIGION: POP MUSIC AND THEOLOGICAL INVENTION EBOOK AUTHOR BY JOHN S. MCCLURE. Mashup

Agnus Dei Final.pdf
cem.. - - - -. 11. Whoops! There was a problem loading this page. Retrying... Whoops! There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download.

Joshua F Fuller
Designed and installed custom solar energy system. ○ Provided in home troubleshooting and servicing of solar thermal and PV systems. ○ Developed skills in ...

Rogersville Union Seminary 1859 Catalogue.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Rogersville ...

Emerging and Burgeoning
Eight consumer markets that will flower in the 21st century. By Allan J. Magrath ... liefs about smokers or disruptive cell phones have led to all sorts of ... nium—leaving out the Internet explosion, which continues to ... making their way into th

agnus dei a 4 final.pdf
Sign in. Loading… Whoops! There was a problem loading more pages. Whoops! There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect ...

preces opus dei pdf
Sign in. Loading… Whoops! There was a problem loading more pages. Retrying... Whoops! There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying.