"[T]he revelation of God is possible only when accompanied by a revelation of what it means to be a human being. Revelation implies that the truth is not fully evident in either case."

      Catholic University of America Press description of Revelations of humanity:  anthropological dimensions of theological controversies (2022), by Richard Shenk, O.P.  I have not read any of these essays, though it would be nice to find words like these in the book itself.

In Christ Jesus there is neither male without female nor female without male?

Servants of God Cyprian and
Daphrose Rugamba (m. 7 April 1994)

"there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

     Gal 3:28 RSV.

"in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;"

οὔτε γυνὴ χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναικὸς ἐν κυρίῳ·

     1 Cor 11:11 RSV.

     I was put onto this by Bernd Wannenwetsch, "Old docetism—new moralism:  questioning a new direction in the homosexuality debate," Modern theology 16, no. 3 (July 2000):  357 (353-364), but have not reflected carefully upon these two passages (including the differences of vocabulary) in their respective contexts.  It should be noted that Wannenwetsch himself twice inadvertently substitutes "Christ" for "Lord" in 1 Cor 11:11 ("If we hear that 'in Christ the man is not without the woman and the woman is not without the man' (1 Cor. 11:11), we have not simply a Christian confirmation of a natural fact—males are typically attracted by females and vice versa; rather we have the pneumatological ('in Christ') revelation of God’s primal will against all possible misinterpretations of this 'natural fact'"), though there are no variant readings to that effect in NA28.

"When the Law drives you to the point of despair, let it drive you a little farther, let it drive you straight into the arms of Jesus who says: 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'"

      Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 3:19, "The Law was added because of transgressions," as heavily paraphrased from 1937 by Theodore Graebner, who was willing to undertake the project proposed by P. J. Zondervan only if "permitted to make Luther talk American, 'streamline' him, so to speak— . . . make him talk as he would talk today to Americans."  The giveaway is the double clause "let it drive you a little farther, let it drive you straight into the arms of Jesus".  For here is how that same passage reads on pp. 315-316 of the far more reliable LW 26:

"Therefore we do not abolish the Law; but we show its true function and use, namely, that it is a most useful servant impelling us to Christ. After the Law has humbled, terrified, and completely crushed you, so that you are on the brink of despair, then see to it that you know how to use the Law correctly; for its function and use is not only to disclose the sin and wrath of God but also to drive us to Christ. None but the Holy Spirit is intent on this use of the Law or preaches the Gospel, because nothing but the Gospel says that God is present with those who are contrite in heart (Is. 57:15). 

"Therefore if you have been crushed by that hammer, do not use your contrition wrongly by burdening yourself with even more laws. Listen to Christ when He says (Matt. 11:28): 'Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' When the Law drives you this way, so that you despair of everything that is your own and seek help and solace from Christ, then it is being used correctly; and so, through the Gospel, it serves the cause of justification. This is the best and most perfect use of the Law."

"no longer . . . the cozy, comfortable middle-class world of the academy"

"it is hopelessly inadequate to reduce the issue to the pitting of one scriptural interpretation against another.  Revelation, unlike Scripture, is a threshold concept.  It is like crossing through a doorway into a whole new world that is not available to us until we get inside it and begin to explore it for ourselves.  To be sure, one has to identify a revelation.  To be sure, one has to interpret a revelation.  To be sure, one has to think through the application of divine revelation in new cultural or intellectual situations.  All these require the full mustering of all our cognitive capacities.  However, once one comes to see something as revelation, then one has to treat the revelation as knowledge.  One has to obey it, to hold tenaciously and even passionately to it, and in some instances to be prepared to die for it.
     "It is very easy to miss this point by retorting that when it comes to revelation the whole debate about the interpretation of revelation breaks out again.  As I have mentioned, of course, one has to interpret a revelation.  However, there is all the difference in the world in what is at stake once the issue is cast in terms of revelation.  One is no longer simply wrestling with a book or a set of texts.  One is wrestling with the word of God.  Sooner or later, whatever the complexity of interpretation, one has to fish or cut bait.  Either there is or there is not a revelation.  Either one has or has not gotten hold of it.  Once these issues are decided, one has crossed the threshold; and the call to treat the putative revelation as knowledge, to obey it, to be tenacious in holding to it, and to die for it kicks in immediately.  We are no longer living in the cozy, comfortable middle-class world of the academy.  We are dealing with the Word of God."

     William J. Abraham, "Chapter 1:  The Church’s teaching on sexuality:  a defense of the United Methodist Church’s Discipline on homosexuality," in Staying the course:  supporting the Church’s position on homosexuality, ed. Maxie D. Dunnam and H. Newton Malony (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 2003), 24-25 (15-31).  Cf. his Crossing the threshold of divine revelation (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2006) and this.

"The defining mark of irreligion is 'sociologism'"

"To [agree with but then] invert Hegel [as Marx did] is to say that philosophy resolves itself not in understanding, but in action—in praxis. But in this case, God, being, nature, truth—all forms of transcendence—simply cease to matter. It is not that their non-existence has been demonstrated by argument; indeed, atheism rests on a negative act of faith, which Del Noce will later exploit for his alternative philosophical history. It is that reason itself has been so transformed by the conflation of thought and praxis that transcendence has become, strictly speaking, unthinkable. God is not a question that can be posed seriously from within this conception of 'reason.' What matters now is history: the past historical and material conditions that make all truth claims into an expression of ideology, and the future historical conditions that will be changed by human praxis, that is, by science and political action, whose 'truth' is verified by its effectiveness.
     "The decisive element of Marx’s atheism is inseparable, in other words, from his rejection of the 'philosophy of comprehension.' And Marxist atheism surpasses all previous forms because it passes into irreligion, which defeats religion not by argument but simply by erasing God and the religious dimension from thought and life. This is the decisive reason that man after Marx is destined to become fully bourgeois—in Del Noce’s later formulation, 'a man whose life is completely determined by the category of usefulness, so that he desecrates everything he thinks about.' The defining mark of irreligion is 'sociologism,' which reduces all pretense of metaphysical truth to historical conditions and social or psychological functions within the immanent field of power relations that define modern politics, carrying a world of metaphysical assumptions in train. Sociologism makes anonymous atheists of us all, and one can measure the scope of its triumph within Christianity itself by the extent to which the social sciences have replaced metaphysics in the Church’s manner of thinking."

     Michael Hanby, "Del Noce's moment," First things no. 327 (November 2022):  60 (59-63).

"it is only with gratitude that life becomes rich"

"In ordinary life we hardly realize that we receive a great deal more than we give, and that it is only with gratitude that life becomes rich."

     Dietrich Bonhoeffer, letter of 13 September 1943 to his parents Karl and Paula Bonhoeffer, Letters and papers from prison:  an abridged edition, new & greatly enlarged ed., ed. Eberhard Bethge & trans. Reginald Fuller, Frank Clarke, et al., as rev. John Bowden (New York:  Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1971), 109.

"In normal life one is often not at all aware that we always receive infinitely more than we give, and that gratitude is what enriches life [(Dankbarkeit macht das Leben erst reich)].  One easily overestimates the importance of one's own acts and deeds, compared with what we become only through other people."

     Dietrich Bonhoeffer, letter of 13 September 1943 to his parents Karl and Paula Bonhoeffer, Letters and papers from prison (Widerstand und Ergebung:  Briefe und Aufzeichnungen aus der Haft), trans. , Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works 8 (Fortress Press), 154 (2/57).

Injustice

"The law [of men] is unjust and inequitable.  Why have they chastised the woman and left the man unpunished?  The wife who has dishonored the bed of her husband is an adulteress, and the consequence of this are for her the harsh sanctions of the law; on the contrary, the husband who is unfaithful to his wife incurs no punishment.  I do not accept this legislation; I do not approve of this custom.  It is men who have legislated in this way; that is why this legislation is directed against the woman. . . . God does not act thus."

     St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), Oration 37.6, as translated from the French of SC 318, 283-285, as reproduced in an article I read.