Pharisees Misunderstood

Isn't it funny when you plan on blogging about a topic and you get beat to the punch? I was planning on doing a couple of posts about Pharisees, but Scot McKnight beat me there, and I'm sure he does a much more thorough job. Also, look here.

When you read the Bible and the Pharisees come into view can you almost hear the Darth Vader music? From the earliest days of Sunday school we are taught that the Pharisees are the "bad guys". Doing some studying the past few months I've discovered that maybe I've misunderstood what was really going on between Jesus and this group of devout Jews. . .

I've always understood the Pharisees to be legalists, plain and simple. This is a group of men that are trying to earn their way to heaven by following the Mosaic Law, and to make matters worse, they are adding their own rules to it! THE HORROR!

The problem is, even if this was true, Jesus really wouldn't have been a threat to them. The issues between Jesus and the Pharisees had more to do with power and nationalism than it did religion.

To be understood correctly, we need to understand that Israel is a nation in exile. Yes, they are living within the boundaries of Israel, but their country is not their own. In truth, they have been in exile since the Babylonian captivity. The Syrians allowed them to come back to the land, but they were still under Syrian authority. They were allowed to rebuild their Temple, but have you noticed that the Shekinah of God never comes back? To make this HORROR even worse, they were being occupied by PAGANS! WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON! WE ARE GOD'S CHOSEN! WE HAVE BEEN IN EXILE FOR 600 YEARS! HELD CAPTIVE BY "DOGS"! WE ARE THE "NEW ADAM" THAT SHOULD BE CARING FOR THE "ANIMALS"! WHEN WILL GOD ACT TO FREE US?!

In this context, the scrupulous attention we see the Pharisees giving to the Law was not about earning their way to heaven, it was about marking themselves as separate from the pagans in their midst. This was a critical issue for Israel! If God was expected to act in their behalf, Israel must differentiate themselves from these pagans! They must remain faithful to the Torah in the midst of temptation, foreign customs, idolatry. . .

To make matters worse it is known that the Pharisees were not just "religious", they had political ambitions as well. They had more in common with the Zealots than with the Essenes. They were not opposed to taking Israel from the Romans by force, and were probably just waiting for a good opportunity, but in the meantime, they had to define who the "true Israel" was. . . They didn't view their strict dietary laws and keeping of the Sabbath as merely a way to get to heaven, but a way to define and separate themselves from the Hellenistic influence that surrounded them. They were nationalistic symbols that determined the true Israel.

N.T Wright says, "The focus of such activity would be the standard symbols of the culture and the culture's hope and aspirations. Did he fly the flag? Was he a loyal Torah observing Jew? (Once again we remind ourselves that this question does not mean, "Did he attempt to justify himself by works, to earn God's favor by good morals?" but rather, "Did he exhibit those symbolic actions by which the loyal Jew would show gratitude to God?')"

So, if the Pharisees were not legalists trying to earn their way to heaven, what was the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees. . .? The answer lies more in nationalistic fervor than in religious observance. . .

The Four Spiritual Laws. . .

In his critique of the Four Spiritual Laws that Campus Crusade uses in their overused and abused track, Scott McKnight makes the following quote:

Third, it is the diagram, which is the image that was used in the 2d spiritual law as well, that concerns me. Here there is "Man" and "God," and it is the Cross of Jesus that enables the human being to get back to God. Once again, we are dealing here with a truncated gospel: the diagram depicts a gospel in which the problem is separation and the resolution is reconciliation. The gospel is always defined by the problem it depicts, and the Bible describes this problem in a number of ways, including but not limited to separation. In other words, if you define the problem as separation, once separation is resolved in reconcliation, the gospel has run its course. Once a person crosses the Cross to get back to God the gospel's work is done. (Few admit this; but the image seers it into the mind of those who are being evangelized and it leads to Christians who see the Christian life as the "second phase" and not the "gospel" phase; it leads to seeing fellowship/ecclesiology as something in addition to the gospel and not integral to the gospel; it does to the same to holiness, etc..)

Is reconciliation of individuals all there is to it? What then of the Church? What then of the World? Whenever the gospel is understood as an individual person finding his or her way back to God, the gospel is reduced to Individualism -- and anyone who reads the Bible knows that page after page is about the people of God (Israel and then the Church) and that the "plan" of God is to build a people for the good of others and the world.

This is one of my critiques of many of the "gospels" that I hear going around. They are completely individualized and narrowly focused. There is little, or no regard for the Church or the concept of God's Kingdom. Many time it is completely divorced from any concept of historical context. So, the Gospel get's relegated to the improvement of individual "mental health", with very little thought for what God is doing with this world, or where it is going.

Additionally, the focus is usually on reconciliation as the cure for our separation with God. Again, we wind up with a Gospel of "mental health", rather than Jesus' solution which was the "Kingdom of God as Jesus envisions it and as Jesus embodies it and as Jesus teaches it."

Can I Live?

My friend Tom sent this to me. I'm sure THIS is much more approriate than calling people murders at abortion clinics...and probably will do more to sway people that life should be valued... Not exactly my style of music, but I wonder how much airtime MTV will give it?

Talking Ma
I know the Situation is Personal
But it something that has to be told
As I was making this beat
You was all I could think about you heard my voice

Yeah Just think Just Think
What if you could Just
Just blink your self away..
Just Just wait just pause for a second
Let me plead my case
It's the late 70's Huh
You Seventeen huh
And having me that will ruin everything huh
It's alot of angels waiting for their wings
You see me in your sleep so you cant kill your dreams
300 Dollars thats the price of living what?
Mommy I dont like this clinic
Hopefully you'll make the right decision
And dont go through with the Knife Decision
But it's hard to make the right move
When you in high school
How you have to work all day and take night school
Hopping off da bus when the rain is pouring
What you want morning sickness or the sickness of mourning

[Chorus]
I Will Always Be apart of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I Would Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE
I Will Always Be apart of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I Would Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE

I am a child of the king
Ain't no need to go fear me
And I see the flowing tears so know that you hear me
When I move in your womb that's me being scary
Cause who knows what my future holds
Yo the truth be told you ain't told a soul
Yo you ain't even showing I'm just 2 months old
Through your clothes try to hide me deny me
Went up 3 sizes
Your pride got you lying saying ain't nothing but a migraine
It ain't surprising you not trying to be in Wic food lines
Your friends will look at you funny but look at you mommy
That's a life inside you look at your tummy
What is becoming ma I am Oprah bound
You can tell he's a star from the Ultrasound
Our Sprits Connected Doors Open Now
Nothing But Love And Respect Thanks For Holding Me Down She Let Me Live...

I Will Always Be apart of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I Would Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE
I Will Always Be apart of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I Would Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE

It's uplifting foreal yall
I ain't passing no judgement
Ain't making no decisions
I am just telling ya'll my story
My love life
I love my mother for giving me life
We all need to appreciate life
A strong woman that had to make a sacrifice
Thanks for listening
Thanks for listening
Mama thanks for listening

Worldview

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. Emergent/Postmodern 96% Neo orthodox 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 68% Charismatic/Pentecostal 57% Classical Liberal 43% Reformed Evangelical 29% Modern Liberal 29% Roman Catholic 21% Fundamentalist 14% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

I don't take many of these quizes, but this one is interesting. Doesn't shock me to much...though I refuse to be pigeon-holed! I'll be a Fundamentalist whenever I feel like it!!!

Fourth of July Memories

We had our first "break" yesterday. I had a great Father's Day breakfast on the porch, some great homemade cards from the kiddos, some grilling paraphernalia (to go with my new barrel grill/smoker!), and some new books. We went out to supper with the rest of my family to celebrate with my Dad....very nice.

Camping was interesting. Giant City State Park has some great trails! The kids were not so great on the other hand. It was one of those wake-up calls when God says "What the hell are you doing with your kids!" Parenthood is such an adventure. . .the balance of grace and law. . .or is there any balance?

With the Fourth of July approaching I though I'd share a memory. I like fire. I like things that explode. I like the Fourth of July!

We lived on a large sloaping hill when I was a kid. So everyone had railroad ties for the flower boxes in front of their houses. When I was about 12 years old I was at a neighbors house the next street over. We had scored some M-80's and figured out that we could load it into holes in the railroad tie, pack rocks around it with the wick sticking out and it would shoot the rocks like a cannon! FUN TIMES! We must have done that for awhile before we started blowing up army men and GI Joes and other stuff...

Apparently his railroad ties must have smoldered all day long . . . Around midnight someone driving down the street saw flames shooting up from this poor guy's flowerbox and started banging on his door! He had to call the fire department to put it out. . . OOOPS!

Good memories. . .

Creationism - Some Thoughts

The Hebrew Universe

I really don’t think it matters if we believe in a literal creation story or not. Can someone partake of the salvation offered by Christ and believe in Evolution? I think so. Can someone be completely lost and believe in Creationism? I think so. So personally, I don’t think it is appropriate to make it a big issue in the Church.

Here are a few excerpts from a response I wrote, playing the devil’s advocate. Keep in mind. I am just throwing some alternative points of view out there. I really don’t think it matters what you believe in the scheme of things because the Bible was NEVER meant to be used as science textbook! These are my thoughts, so accept them for the B.S. that they are:

The view that one must either believe “New Earth” Creationism or Darwinian Evolution is at best oversimplified, and at worst creates a false dichotomy. There are many different views of Creationism that do not rely on believing in a literal 6-day creation, or a global flood for that matter, that are not necessarily Darwinian Evolution.

Further, other Middle Eastern creation stories are remarkably similar to the Genesis account, and actually pre-date Genesis. Genesis was a particular creation story, for a particular people, written in a particular time in history. It is the setting for the rest of the Bible, and as such is extremely important. But, it is not the only creation story from the ancient Middle East, it is not completely unique, and is in fact, probably built on previous stories. (It is unique in particular ways, but that’s not really the issue.) These stories do not invalidate Genesis, but it is fairly clear that Genesis was built on these older creation accounts.

As such, Genesis was never meant to be used as a science textbook. Genesis was written in a pre-scientific age to people who had no concern for any of the issues you brought up, by using it as such I believe is misapplying and misinterpreting Scripture. You asked me how I could believe in the Bible, and pick and choose what I take as literal. There are many things about the Bible we don’t take literally because they were never intended to be taken literally, or they were not meant for us. For instance, we don’t take some of the poetic verses in the Psalms literally, we don’t gouge our eyes out, we don’t kill Philistines etc. I say that in reading Genesis the way it was intended, from a pre-scientific point of view, I am taking it literally, and by doing so, keeping myself from arguments that are not necessary.

I am aware that this might lead to a discussion about the “inerrancy” of the Bible (another Fundamentalist topic). Please know that one can still believe that the Bible is “infallible” without believing it is “inerrant”. I believe the Bible is perfect, in that it contains the information I need for life and salvation. However, it is not a science textbook. There are views that are contrary to common sense, and basic science.

One example that comes to mind is that the ancient Hebrew universe was shaped like a giant dome (firmament), that giant dome separated the “waters”, the earth was more or less flat, and stands on pillars... In a literal interpretation of the Bible, do I have to accept this? Science has found those things not to be true at all. So, by looking at Genesis like it should teach science we are put in awkward position.

The following verses explain the picture above: Job 26.11; 37.18; Gen 1.6, 7; Ps 24.2; 148.4; Gen 7.11; 8.2; Gen 1.14-19; Ps 19.4, 6; Num 16.30-33; Isa 14.9, 15

If I am to read the Bible “literally do I have to believe this is how the universe looks? Maybe I have become to “educated” to “believe” the Bible...

I am certainly not one to buy Darwinian Evolution, but neither am I willing to totally discount science. I don’t think justice is done to the issue by discussing a few “scientific” facts that supposedly backs up a “new earth” point of view without giving equal time to the abundance of scientific evidence that refutes it.

Creationism

So, in our last Sunday before our hiatus a brother preached a sermon on Creationism. It was the typical Fundamentalist view: The Creation account must be taken literally. Creation was six literal days. Here is some scientific evidence. If you don't take the creation account literally, you don't have a need for a literal Jesus. . .

I confess. As I got up to sing the closing song I said, "That was B.S." I'm probably going straight to hell for that one. . .

So, what is your take on Creationism? "New Earth"? "Old Earth"? Evolutionism? evolutionism? Does it matter? Why, or why not?

I'll post some of my thoughts in my next post. . .

Floyd

Wish I Was There...

Boundary Markers

From Scot McKnight:

Two final comments: first, we need to admit that we are all involved in covenant parth marking. Sometimes more severely than other times; some more than others; but each of us uses various behaviors to judge ourselves and others.

Second, there are only two "theories" of the Christian life that simply cannot be "marked." You won't be surprised by this, but they are (1) Jesus' use of the Jesus Creed: loving God and loving others. And, (2) Paul's use of the category of "life in the Spirit."

Here's why each is "unmarkable." Because Love is a response and a life that transcends the observable and life in the Spirit is as well. Who can say "I've got love down, give me a challenge" or "I'm always in the Spirit, anything else you want me to do?" These two are unmarkable in part because they are ongoing, responsive, and qualitative features of Christian existence. And they are both almost "unjudgeable": how can we really know if someone is loving? how can we know if someone is really "living in the Spirit"? Only by converting love and Spirit into "objectified" covenant path markers, and when we do that we slip out of the embrace of love and the Spirit.

5 Minute Church

Driven by the efficiency and pragmatism of our culture, the institutional church has lowered the bar yet again. Forget discipleship. Forget "taking up your cross". Forget the Shema. Forget about being the Church. Just give us 5 minutes. . .


Although, for as much as I get out of a typical church service. . . 5 minutes might be just about right. . .

Historical Context of 1st Century Israel

I am reading "The New Testament and The People of God" by N.T. Wright. It's been very helpful to read the NT in light of the context in which it was lived out and written. I happened across this summary which seems to accurately describe what I've read so far:

"The Jews had, of course, returned to the land of Israel after the exile. But nowhere in all second-temple Jewish literature do we have the slightest suggestion that the great promises and prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the rest – including those of Deuteronomy 30, which were important for Paul – had been fulfilled. Israel had not been restored to her proper position; she was not ruler in her own land; the Temple was not properly rebuilt; YHWH had not returned to dwell in the midst of his people; justice and peace were not yet established in Israel, let alone in the rest of the world. The ‘post-exilic’ prophets such as Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi indicate pretty forcibly that things are still in poor shape; Israel is not yet all she should be, and a further great act of YHWH will be necessary. Qumran proves the point exactly: the self-understanding evident in (e.g.) CD is precisely that of people who see themselves as the advance guard of the real return from exile, which means that everybody else is still in exile, and that they are the first, secret ‘returnees’, who will be vindicated as such when YHWH finally acts. "

"Few will doubt, in fact, that the great majority of Jews in Jesus’ day were looking for a major action of their god within history to liberate his people. Even those who want to minimize this have to allow for a huge groundswell of this belief bursting out in the mid-60s of the first century. The point here is that, in thinking about and longing for this event, they did not merely draw upon patterns and types, such as the Exodus, culled at random, allegorically or typologically, from a past conceived as a scattered bunch of unconnected events. Rather, they saw themselves in sequence with, and continuing, Israel’s whole past story, waiting for that story to reach its promised goal. They were not living in an ahistorical mode, in which the only question of weight were timeless salvation or ethics, with such issues being ‘illustrated’ by ideas taken in a fairly random fashion from her distant past. Rather, they read that past not least as a story; as a story which was continuing, and in which they themselves were characters; as a story with an ending, which can variously be characterized as ‘return from exile’; ‘return of YHWH to Zion’; ‘salvation’; ‘forgiveness of sins’; ‘new covenant’; ‘new exodus’; and perhaps even, for some at least, ‘new creation’ and ‘resurrection’. "

Sadly, that last bolded statement is how many of us have been taught to read the New Testament....

I'll post some more later...for you light readers...

Camping for a month?

Some of us Midwest misfits are going to have a campout soon.... Really looking forward to getting to know some of our blog friends!

In other news: We are taking a month off from leading worship to detox and clear our heads. We are not sure what comes next. . .but God does. . .

Tagged

Trish "tagged" me...I don't like this stuff, but it's interesting to hear about what others are reading...so...

1.Total number of books I own: Too many. I like books...

2. Last book I bought: The Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight

3. Last book I read: The Naked Church by Wayne Jacobsen

4. Five books that mean a lot to me: The Ragamuffin Gospel, Life of the Beloved, The Jesus Style, The New Testament and the People of God, He Loves Me

5. Two major books when I was a kid: The Stand, On The Beach

6. People I want to tag: I don't want to inflict this on anyone else...no offense....

The Law "Unpacked"

I've become aware that how we view the Mosaic Law really matters in how we understand grace. I admit to buying into the Reformation view that Grace was totally contrary to the Law, and that maybe that wasn't what Paul was getting at. So, what was Paul's view of the Mosaic Law? Here are a few things I posted in a discussion about that topic.

"The Mosaic Law is a system of earning God's favor."

After doing some study on that, I think there are some problems with that point of view. I am not saying that Paul would not be opposed to a system of earning God's favor, but correlating the Law with that system is reading to much into the text.

First, when Paul uses the word "nomos" he is referring directly to the Mosaic Law, not a universal principle of earning favor or merit (for two good examples see Gal. 3:15-25 and Rom. 5:13-14).

Second, while Paul believes that the Torah is temporary, he does not casually dismiss it, and even quotes from it to reinforce his argument (1Cor. 9:9 to stay in the letter you are working with here).

Third, in the same letter you are working with we find this:

1Co 9:20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain the Jews. To those who are under the Law, I became as under the Law, so that I might gain those who are under the Law.

Now, if the Law is a system of earning God's favor, is Paul saying that he was pretending to earn God's favor by works, or that he was acting like a Law-observant Jew (ie. observing dietary requirements etc.)?

Fourth, I think you are "demonizing" the Mosaic Law by claiming it as a system of earning God's favor, something Paul didn't do. To him the Law was good, it is sin within us that made the Law ineffective (Rom. 7). Again, this is an example of Paul talking about Mosaic Law and not universalizing it.

Last, I think that Paul's issue with the Law was not that it was a system of legalism, but that it had served it's purpose in redemption-history. Christ is the goal of the Law (Rom. 10:4)! So, if the Judaizers were trying to get the Gentiles to enter it by circumcision (which is the main reason for Galatians, and underlies Romans), it is not legalistic, it is missing the point. By relying on the Law they are now missing the whole point, which was Christ! Faith has replaced Law (Gal. 3:25-26).

I suspect that our intepretation of the Law as a system of earning God's favor comes from Luther and the other Reformers who WERE battling a religious system of legalism. I think it is entirely possible that they read their contemporary issues into the text rather than asking the tough historical questions.

Feel free to poke some holes in this. I'm sure there are things that I'm missing, or have wrong...