People frequently ask Sophia faculty and trustees what we intend to prepare our students to be and do. This entry is the third installment in answer to that question. With thanks to my faculty colleagues, Drs. Melissa Jackson and Jon Barnes, it continues our statement concerning how Sophia seeks to prepare individuals and a community for having the mind and doing the work of Christ more authentically today.
In addition to addressing the fundamental inauthenticity that infects American Christianity, Sophia’s curriculum and pedagogy must confront the idolatrous cultural captivity – in an extreme form in Christian White Supremacism, but also in the normativity of middle-class values. As Robert Jones writes in White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity, “The historical record of lived Christianity in America reveals that Christian theology and the institutions that have been the central cultural tent pole holding up the very idea of white supremacy.”) Allegiance to a particular culture or to the nation-state is idolatry and reflects a pseudo-soteriology. It is idolatry because it involves a penultimate entity calling for ultimate devotion. It is pseudo-soteriology because it confuses the state with the source of all blessing. Sophia’s response: rigorous and unflinching study of the scriptural witness and of the church’s historical struggle with the relationship between faith and political power (Constantinianism and the [ana]baptist insistence on the wall of separation, for example).
This cultural captivity also includes a chauvinism with regard to non-Western expressions of Christianity. Outsiders see the body of those called Christian as a social entity comprised of like-minded, like-race, individuals who value the maintenance of the status quo, the entertainment quality of worship services, and the attainment of middle-class security. Nothing in this vision bespeaks the radical change Jesus brings to human lives. Nothing in it announces the call to Christ-like servanthood. Nothing in it points beyond the egocentrism of modern consumer culture. American Christians too easily identify a certain version of American culture as an expression of God’s will: American exceptionalism, which often means “America first” (both in terms of supremacy and priority, as it seems to right now) and often suggests an “America, love it or leave it” attitude. American Christians tend to baptize market forces, even within the church, and to idolize the American system of government. As Philip Jenkins has noted, “[if] we want to visualize a ‘typical’ contemporary Christian, we should think of a woman living in a village in Nigeria or a Brazilian favela” and not a white, middle-class family living in suburbia. Sophia’s curriculum will place special emphasis on developing critical awareness of one’s own culture and open-minded appreciation of the cultures of others.
This cultural captivity, along with the perceived normativity of Western forms of faith, often finds expression in a stark inhospitality that keeps us from being able to experience (and indeed celebrate!) the many ways Christian faith is lived in our world and the many gifts that can be shared and received. First, many do not feel welcome or valued because large swaths of US Christianity have made it clear that they don’t belong. Members of the LGBTQI+ community, the differently abled, and the immigrant are just a few examples. These beloved members of God’s family (and our family members and neighbors) are being told that, despite being created in the imago Dei, they are not worthy of being part of the church (contrast Isa 56:7 and Acts 8:26-40). Second, when looking at migration, our cultural captivity has made us unwilling or unable to recognize the gift of different understandings of God and expressions of faith that exist in our communities. The exponential growth of Christianity in places like Africa, Asia, and Latin America is not just being experienced “over there.” Jehu Hanciles writes that, “new immigrants have transformed America into the most religiously diverse nation on the planet…. [The] majority of … new migrants (at least 60 percent according to one survey) are Christians (from Africa, Asia, and Latin American) who are expressing their Christianity in languages, customs, forms of spirituality, and community formation that are almost as foreign to Americans as other religions. The new immigrant Christian communities are effectively ‘de-Europeanizing’ American Christianity.” While American Christians have the opportunity to worship, build friendships, and find common cause on issues of justice that affect all of us in the communities in which we live, the narrow understanding of faith by many in the US inhibits our ability to receive, learn from, and be transformed by these gifts. Sophia intends to broaden its students’ understanding of the rich diversity and complexity of faithful expression.
With some clarity regarding the thorniness of the term “church,” my faculty colleagues at Sophia Theological Seminary, Drs. Melissa Jackson and Jon Barnes, and I have attempted a rough analysis of the negative forces pressuring the body of believers today. Each element of this analysis, in turn, evokes as a response how Sophia seeks to prepare individuals and a community for embodying the ministry of reconciliation in today’s context.
First, a fundamental inauthenticity, even a profound hypocrisy, plagues the broader community that identifies itself as the body of Christ. The Gospel is clear concerning God’s love for everyone, concerning the fact that, in Christ, there is no gender, ethnic, or social hierarchy, and concerning the clarion call to make peace, to do justice, and to facilitate reconciliation. Unfortunately, however, the history of the church is too often the story of being on the wrong side of affairs: resisting civil rights advances, endorsing unjust wars, and perpetuating components of a social and economic structure that silently oppresses minorities. Currently, for example, many in the US who identify themselves as followers of Jesus support government actions apparently designed to intimidate, denigrate, injure, and even kill indiscriminately. This attitude that divides and demeans contrasts sharply with Jesus’ congratulations for the “peacemakers, who will be called the children of God,” who have been charged with “the ministry of reconciliation.”
Sophia addresses this inauthenticity through careful study of the Bible’s (both portions) staunch insistence on the value of being human, on the notion that doing must be consonant with being, on the recognition that faith and action are but sides of a single coin. At Sophia, students and faculty together honestly examine and acknowledge the history of Christianity’s impact, negative and positive, on human history, human societies, and human beings. At Sophia, students and faculty together will explore avenues and means for redressing the plague of inauthenticity through an audacious commitment to following Jesus.
I am the founding dean of Sophia Theological Seminary. This blog entry introduces Sophia.
A standard seminary curriculum overly fragments the subject matter into discrete and disjointed specialized disciples, too often leaving students on their own to integrate blocks of knowledge into a coherent and holistic understanding. Social forces undermine traditional community/communities and alienate individuals and communities from vital connections with nature, the land, and the rhythms of creation. Sophia re-imagines theological education to address these concerns through a curriculum emphasizing wisdom over data, a funding scheme stressing self-sufficiency and sustainability, and an ethos accentuating context and cooperation – in God’s good creation, in the world, and as a community.
Sophia Theological Seminary re-imagines the educational program based on the insight that the best theological education integrates the traditional fields of theological study, with one another and with life (of the individual, the community, and the world) and ministry. Consequently, its curriculum will be integrated across disciplines, seminar-based, and focused around specific, “everyday” ministry topics. Sophia recognizes that ministers of the Gospel need to be equipped with data, information, knowledge – in Sophia’s case, the traditional disciplines of theological education – in order to serve well the kindom of God, but it acknowledges further that, in the complicated and confusing modern context, ministers also need the wisdom “from above” to guide them in making their knowledge and skills relevant. Ministers need real community and experience in maintaining it; they need to harmonize with the rhythms of work and rest built into the created order; they need firm connections with the goodness of God’s world so that they can envision what redemption looks like.
Sophia expresses its core sensibilities as follows:
being a community of inclusive welcome [which] is foundational to the life, work, and self-understanding of the seminary.
theological education [as a] holistic endeavor, with a curriculum that is integrated across disciplines, both ‘classical’ and practical,” and that moves freely between “church” and “academy.”
theological education …undertaken with rigor, [with] all members of the community …considered to be learners in need of continued growth and challenge.
governance of the community [through] a collaborative partnership amongst all constituencies invested in the life of the seminary, each represented with a full and equal voice.
its heritage as little “b” baptist, understanding this heritage as historical, transcending specific denominational confines, [while] equally commit[ting] itself to ecumenical and interfaith work, locally and globally.
One other important aspect of Sophia’s structure addresses the problem of declining denominational economic support for theological education. This circumstance has necessitated that seminaries rely for funding primarily on increased student tuition and the generosity of donors, each with a negative consequence. Students regularly graduate from seminary now with student debt resembling that of law and medical school graduates, but with significantly less prospect for earning enough to repay the debt comfortably. One result is a decline in the numbers of those willing to take the time and incur the debt to earn a theological education. Donors, meanwhile, have begun to tire of seeing their gifts go primarily into the operating budgets of seminaries, rather than into endowments that could sustain the viability of institutions. Consequently, seminaries all over the country and from virtually every denomination are closing or otherwise curtailing their activities. The earnings of Sophia Seminary’s sister institution, Sophia Farms, a 501(c)3 vegetable farm operating with sustainable, responsible farming techniques, will go to fund the operating budget of the seminary. The marketing model addresses carbon footprint issues, embraces ecologically-responsible farming practices, and, through Sophia’s commitment to “tithe” produce directly to local organizations that address food insecurity and nutrition education, responsibility to the community. If you’d like to know more, visit www.sophiasem.org and www.sophiafarms.org.
This, the third installment in my response to a former student, turns attention to a few considerations to keep in mind to guard against mishandling Scripture given its anthology status and the history of its formation. It may not be correct to describe these “considerations” as “principles,” because one might construe the term as a depiction of biblical interpretation as a methodical, even mechanical, procedure. Interpreting the Bible well requires wisdom beyond the mere application of rules. Still, certain reminders can provide guardrails against what is sometimes called eisegesis, the act of reading into Scripture one’s own preferences rather than reading out of Scripture the message it intends to convey.
The first among these axioms involves the importance of the plain meaning of the text in its original language. Of course, not all readers of the Bible have facility with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The very fact that most readers of the Bible rely on translations suggests a number of cautions. No translation of any piece of literature, including the Bible, from one language to another perfectly and fully captures the intention, the subtleties, and the art of the original. Consequently, one’s choice of translation represents the first important decision one makes as a student of the Bible.
Some translations (KJV, RSV and NRSV, for
example) employ the so-called ‘formal correspondence’ approach in which the
translator attempts to represent each element in the original with a
corresponding element in the translation.
A simple example is the translation of the German sentence “Das ist eine
Katze” into English as “That is a cat.”
The prominent alternative, the ‘dynamic equivalency’ approach, seeks to
render whole units of speech into the receptor language such that it preserves
the ‘gist’ of meaning but, usually, in a more colloquial form. A major weakness of the ‘dynamic equivalency’
approach involves the tendency to translate, not just from one language to
another, but from one worldview and cultural background to another.
Paraphrases also enjoy some popularity because of their readability. They are, however, paraphrases, not translations at all. Readers should not rely upon them as sources for theology or ethics, faith or practice.
The term plain meaning of the text should not be confused with the dangerous term literal meaning. Surely responsible interpretation begins with the “plain sense,” but some passages of scripture are “plainly” hyperbole, parable, allegory, fiction, even satire or sarcasm. Furthermore, those who insist on interpreting the Bible literally often exercise a degree of inconsistency in the effort that reveals theological biases. Interpreters must guard against selectively emphasizing certain biblical texts, for example. They must also always keep in mind their human propensity to employ subjective criteria. Typical examples of this interpretive inconsistency include treatments of texts in the Hebrew Bible that deal with eating pork and of New Testament texts that deal with women in authority. If one wishes to say that the Bible means what it says, but then entirely disregards explicit prohibitions, it requires one to explain how any portion of the Bible could have become entirely invalid. In other words, it requires one to admit that at least portions of the Bible must be interpreted and it requires a coherent and transparent hermeneutical approach. If one wishes to base one’s stance against women in ministry on 1 Tim 2:13, consistency demands that one also take a stance against women wearing “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” (1 Tim 2:9). Otherwise, one engages in special pleading.
This second installment of my response to a former student concerning my understanding of the authority of scripture will deal with the importance of reading any literature, including the Bible, in accordance with its inherent character. Science fiction books are not science textbooks. It is important to listen to the Bible regarding its nature instead of applying a priori definitions to it. So, what is the literary character of the Bible?
A Literary Anthology
First, the name itself reveals something important, namely that the Bible is not monolithic. “Bible” derives from the Greek expression ta biblia (“the [collection of] little books”) used in the early Church to designate the books of the canon in aggregate. Although modern editions of the Bible have the appearance of a single book, appearance masks the long history of composition and compilation that produced it. No one knows how many authors and editors contributed to the books that comprise the Bible. The books of Psalms (Asaph, the sons of Korah, Ethan, Heman, etc.) and Proverbs (Agur, Lemuel, a number of unnamed wisdom teachers, etc.) mention multiple authors and, along with Lamentations and probably Song of Songs, constitute anthologies. Ecclesiastes represents the work of an editor who collected the teachings of Qoheleth, “The Preacher,” and published them with a brief editorial introduction (Eccl 1:1) and postscript (Ecc 12:9-14) admonishing readers to handle the words of Qoheleth with caution.
The Process of Collection or Canonization
Writing over
more than a millennium, the authors and editors of the sixty-six (as enumerated
in the Protestant tradition) components of the scriptural anthology had no
awareness that their works would one day become part of the collection that
came to be called the Bible. God did not
first reveal the Table of Contents of the Bible. When the Evangelist wrote the
Gospel of Matthew, he did not think that he had written the first book of the
New Testament! (In fact, in historical order, the first New Testament book
written was probably either Galatians or 1 Thessalonians). At the time, there
was no New Testament and no “plan” on the part of its authors to produce
it. Instead, a centuries-long process in
which the community of faith, first the Jews and then the Christians, came to
recognize these books as a necessary source for their faith.
It is helpful
to think historically. No one can be
sure which of the books of the Hebrew Bible, or portions of books like the
Psalms, were written first, or when. They will have circulated individually,
probably on scrolls. Incidentally, we probably would not even think of “the
Bible” as a single book were it not for the Greek invention of the codex
(book with turnable pages). In the era
when “books” were written on “scrolls” one would have needed a wagon to
transport the individual books of the canon.
One could certainly not have carried it in its entirety in one’s hands.
Scholars can
say with relative certainty that, sometime in the late exilic or post-exilic
periods, probably circa 300 BCE, the believing community had come to regard the
five books grouped together to comprise the Torah (the Law, also called the
Pentateuch or “five books”) as authoritative.
Books like Isaiah and Jeremiah existed and circulated alongside the
Pentateuch, but did not attain canonical status until a century or so later
(cf. the “Letter of Aristeas”). Significantly,
this second section of the Hebrew canon, the Nebi’im or Prophets,
contains Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings (the so-called “Former
Prophets”), the three major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), and the
twelve minor prophets (usually written on one scroll and referred to as “the
Book of the Twelve” or the Dodekaprofeton). The Hebrew canon remained
‘open,’ as it were, to the inclusion of still other books until sometime after
Jesus, who regularly referred to the scriptures as “the law and the prophets”
(Matt 7:12; 22:20; Luke 16:16; cf. John 1:45; Rom 3:21), reflecting the fact
that, in his day, the third section of the Hebrew Bible had not yet been
defined as canon. Sometime after Jesus,
probably motivated by a perceived need to close the canon to Jewish-Christian
literature, the Jewish community acknowledged the significance of a series of
other books, known collectively as the Kethubim or “the Writings.”
The cases of
the books of Esther, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes offer instructive perspectives
on the process whereby the faith community came to recognize certain individual
books as authoritative during the period of the formation of the Kethubim.
According to the Mishnah (mYad III:5), during the time of Rabbi Akiba (c.
50-135 CE), there was some uncertainty concerning canonicity of these three books:
Esther because it does not even mention God (cf. bMeg 7a); Song of Songs
both because it does not mention God and because of its undeniable eroticism;
and Ecclesiastes because of its skeptical tone. According to the Talmud (bSan
101a) and the Tosefta (San XII:10), Rabbi Akiba argued strongly
against acknowledging the eroticism in Songs by singing it in a secular “banquet
house.” In the end, the association in popular practice between each of these
books and an important festival (Esther – Purim; Song of Songs – Passover;
Ecclesiastes – Feast of Booths or Tabernacles) seems to have swayed sentiment
in favor of their canonicity.
The New
Testament canon took shape over a much shorter period. Several positions
regarding which books should be considered authority surfaced in the early
centuries of the church. When Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria issued his
pastoral Easter letter of 367 CE, he listed the familiar 27 books of the New
Testament, although in a different order.
It is important to remember that the believing communities, both Jewish and Christian, produced scores of other books during the period of the formation of the canon. Some books seemed to speak more clearly to the community than others, however. In fact, for Christians, two criteria seemed to determine whether a book would be considered canonical: apostolicity and catholicity (in the sense of universal). First, the book in question must have been able to claim connection directly to the generation of those who knew Jesus during his lifetime. (Paul dealt with the accusation that he was not truly an apostle on these grounds. He maintained that the Damascus Road experience qualified him as such.) Contact with Jesus of Nazareth lent authenticity. Second-hand information would have been unreliable. Second, the book must not be parochial, but speak to the whole church everywhere and across time.
A Collection of Diverse Genres
In accordance
with its character as an anthology, “Bible” is not, itself, a literary genre. The
books in this anthology represent tens, if not scores, of distinct genres, each
requiring a distinct interpretive approach. As already mentioned, the book of
Psalms contains prayers; Deuteronomy offers guidance on applying the axiomatic
principles of the Decalogue in concrete situations. Song of Songs comprises a
cycle of, sometimes quite erotic, love songs.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the rest are prophetic books. Daniel and
Revelation are apocalyptic literature. Each of these genres calls for different
interpretive approaches. One could say
that one can hear the word of God in them on different frequencies.
Of course, many
biblical books contain narratives of various sub-genres. They do not purport to
be something like “scripts” written by God directing human beings to do and say
what God wanted done and said. They are stories that report what people did and
said, often contrary to God’s will, in fact. Here, it may be well to point out the
distinction between prescriptive texts (love your neighbor) and narrative or descriptive
texts (just about anything David ever did).
Since the Bible records God’s relationship with God’s people, it includes a significant proportion of narrative material relating events in the life of God’s people. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged the death of her husband, Uriah, to hide his crime. God did not direct David to do so; David did these things on his own. The Bible records it because it was an important event in David’s relationship with God – a negative event, but an important one. The Bible abounds in accounts of human misbehavior: violence, sex, deceit, theft – the whole range of possibilities for human wrongdoing. God inspired none of these acts. The Bible faithfully records it all, however, because to say that God enters into relationship with people is to say that God becomes involved in messy human lives.
Since the Bible records God’s relationship with God’s people, it records God’s involvement in a specific branch of human history. God called Abraham, a native of Ur in Mesopotamia; God called Moses, an adoptive Egyptian prince. Israel took shape as a people and a nation amid cultures that had already developed writing, that had legal systems, that had established societal norms and practices. It should not be surprising that Abraham continued many of the customs and practices (polygamy, for example) he had learned in Ur, nor that Moses and the Israelites of the Exodus would continue the institution of slavery. God met these people where they were; God did not create their culture. Over time, through relationship with God, the people of God came to clearer understandings of God’s character and God’ will. The Bible records the history of that growth. To take a snapshot of a moment in that history and make it definitive is to miss the grander, broader picture.
The Bible is not a monolith. It does not communicate God’s will unfiltered by the experience of the human beings who fill its pages and who authored it. The Bible can become God’s word for the reader who engages with it profoundly, for a prolonged period, and with wise hearts, and open ears.
A beloved former student whom
I taught early in my career at the undergraduate level recently contacted me
via social media to ask whether some of the views I express there represent
changes in my thinking since that earlier time in my life and career.
Specifically, this former student equated my public positions regarding a
number of hot button social issues with an abandonment of confidence in the
authority of Scripture. I responded that a fulsome treatment of the questions
put to me would far exceed the scope of social media communications and
promised to publish such a treatment on my blog very soon. Over the next
several weeks I will publish here a detailed explanation of the principles or
axioms that guide me as I read Scripture.
This first installment of my response will, by way of preamble, assert that simply reading the Bible guided by the slogan, “the Bible says it – that settles it,” as though the Bible requires no interpretation leads one into a number of dangers. It is important, for example, to distinguish between the WORD of God, the word of God, and the words of God. The first is the Logos incarnate, the second is a term the church uses to acknowledge the Bible as a source for our faith; yet, the Bible is neither per se nor in toto the “words” of God. Lengthy speeches by Job’s friends constitute about half of the book. They make arguments that sound very orthodox and pious. Eliphaz the Temanite can represent them here:
“Agree with God, and be at peace; thereby good will come
to you. Receive instruction from his mouth, and lay up his words in your heart…For
God abases the proud, but he saves the lowly. He delivers the
innocent man; you will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands” (Job
22:21-22, 29-30 RSV).
These statements sound like some good memory
verses, but the end of the book reports that, after speaking with Job, God
spoke also to this same Eliphaz: “My wrath is kindled against you and against
your friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job
has” (Job 42:5 RSV). In other words, the speeches of Job’s friends do NOT
communicate God’s will. Instead, they function in scripture as part of its rich
dialogue in the effort of the faithful to seek understanding.
No less than the Apostle Paul made clear on
one occasion that one should distinguish between his personal opinion and the
will of God. In response to a question
from the Corinthian church concerning the desirability of remaining celibate in
light of, what they thought would be, the imminent Parousia, Paul advised them:
“Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the
Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is
trustworthy.I think that in view of the present
distress it is well for a person to remain as he is…I want you to be
free from anxieties” (1 Cor 7:25-26 RSV, italics added). One wonders how often
Paul may have stated a personal opinion without indicating it as such. In much
the same way, the Bible’s narratives report what Abraham, Naomi, David, Mary,
and Peter said, not God’s words. It is simply dangerous to regard everything in
the Scriptures as a statement directly from God.
Indeed, often the challenge is to comprehend how
a particular passage can possibly be understood as word of God. The
so-called imprecatory psalms clearly belong in this category. What is God’s
word for God’s people in statements such as the conclusion of Psalm 139 (vv
8-9), an exilic prayer asking God to take vengeance on the Edomites and the
Babylonians.
O daughter of Babylon, you
devastator!
Happy shall he be who
requites you
with what you have done to
us!
Happy shall he be who
takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock! (RSV)
The entire Psalter, of course, asks readers to grapple with how to consider it the word of God. After all, every psalm represents human speech addressed to or about God. The psalter includes not only imprecatory psalms such as Psa 139, but complaints and laments charging God with inaction (cf. Ps 74, esp. v 11; Ps 79) alongside prayers of thanksgiving and hymns of praise. They are not the words of God, but, in the context of the overall witness of Scripture to a God who desires relationship, they constitute the human side of the dialogue. God’s people need them as models. It is important to distinguish between the WORD of God, the word of God, and the words of God.
“Power” is a tricky word. In everyday usage, it
can mean “authority to control” or “ability to coerce,” on the one hand. On the other, the Gospel of the Crucified One
clearly does not view such “power” as a gift of God. “Power” can also mean the energy, impulse,
dynamism necessary to effect change through love. I pray that rather than
concentrating on how to wield coercive, controlling power, believers will
reconnect with the power of the Gospel to change lives, families, communities,
and entire societies.
As bearers of God’s image, we belong to one another—our neighbor, our community, our earth, its inhabitants, all creation. At Sophia, as we learn together alongside each other, you will become a vital part of a body that transforms you and is transformed by you.
The Bible uses a number of
metaphors and analogies to describe a community inhabited by God’s presence: a
kingdom, a vine and its branches, a congregation (Hebrew: qahal; Greek: ekklesia),
a group of disciples. Paul demonstrated a certain preference for the image of
the body, the body of Christ.
This rich image speaks to many things. It reminds us that, while community, to be sure, involves a degree of unity, that unity is not uniformity and is certainly not conformity. Members in a true community remain distinct individuals, each respecting the other and the other’s contribution. Here, the musical concept of harmony complements Paul’s body metaphor nicely. The harmony that Sophia seeks involves multiple tones structured in chords, rather than a group of voices singing in unison.
Paul’s image reminds us that the
life of a community involves many tasks and that, correspondingly, members of a
community have many functions. A healthy community will include hands to hold
and shape, eyes to see need, feet to go where there is need, hearts to feel
compassion for the needy, and minds to understand the need. No function can
claim priority, and every function is necessary.
The image of the body of Christ underscores the fact that each member of the body is precious to all the others. Hearts that circulate the blood that delivers nutrients throughout need lungs to oxygenate that blood. Muscles depend on that blood. Fingers may seem relatively less vital, but when they have been injured, the whole body knows the pain. At Sophia, every part cherishes every other part. Differences in function do not matter.
Paul’s body imagery also suggests that a healthy body grows and develops. Minds sharpen; muscles develop; bones lengthen and strengthen. Throughout life, hopefully, human beings gain in wisdom, understanding, and compassion. Sophia’s community prioritizes nurturing such growth, not just in knowledge, but also in mature personhood.
The Advent and Christmas seasons give us the opportunity to remember that, in keeping with Paul’s notion, as members of the body of Christ, followers of Jesus have the privilege and responsibility of incarnating, embodying Christ in the world. As bearers of God’s image, we belong to one another—our neighbor, our community, our earth, its inhabitants, all creation. At Sophia, as we learn together alongside each other, you will become a vital part of a body that transforms you and is transformed by you.
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
You can find more information in our About me and .
You must be logged in to post a comment.