Romans and Galatians, which speak about Law and Grace more fully than any of Paul’s other letters both have an underlying issue. Who is going to be in the people of God and how does that happen. In Galatians the Judaizers were saying that the Gentiles must be circumcised to be part of the New Covenant. In Romans the historical context is involved, but there was a lot of anti-Semitism in the time, and it is entirely possible that the Gentile Christians in Rome were looking down on the Christian Jews. Either way, Paul is looking at the Gospel as a reconciliation of all people to God and each other, and the “signs” or “badges” of covenant membership have changed. Is it possible that given the theological context of the Law and the covenant, and the fact that Paul was dealing with a situation in which Gentiles were being admitted on equal standing with the Jews in the New Covenant, that when Paul defines justification as being “reckoned to be within the people of God”?
N. T. Wright explains his view from Romans:
Looking back to 3:21-31 (i.e., not merely echoing a randomly chosen pre-Pauline formula), Paul states that Jesus was given up “for our sins” and raised “for our justification.” Sin has been dealt with on the cross (3:24-26); the resurrection of Jesus is the vindication for which Israel, the people of Abraham, had been waiting on the basis of the covenant promises; and now all those who belong to Jesus’ people, who are characterized by faith in the god who raised him from the dead, are assured that the same divine verdict is pronounced over them, too.
Wright goes on to explain that justification has three tenses.
Future – There will come a day when the righteous Creator will put the world to rights, and on that day some will be declared to be in the right. (Rom. 2:1-16)
Past – Justification is the verdict pronounced over Jesus in his resurrection. The resurrection declared that Jesus was indeed God’s Son, so it declares in principle that He is the “true Israel”, the vindicated people of the creator. (Rom. 1:4)
Present – “Justification by faith,” as articulated in Rom. 3:26-30 and undirgirded in 4:1-25 the past verdict over Jesus is brought forward and applied to those who have faith in the god who raised Jesus, and in which the future verdict is brought backwards with the same application and result (cf. 8:1: there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus).
This assumes a few things. First, there will be a “final judgment”. Personally, after studying Rom. 2 again, I don’t know how people can say that there will not be some type of a future, final “setting to rights” of creation. It is plainly in the text and is assumed through Paul's arguements. I think we tend to look at judgment as negative, but essentially it is making the world right again. Second, the present tense of justification brings out the fact that there is a “boundary” for the New Covenant: faith. I am sure this will make some people uncomfortable, but in studying Rom. 1-4 again (I haven't gotten past that yet) I cannot deny it.
What do you think?
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Justification within the Covenant
Some of the answers to these questions lay in the concept of covenant, a word that I find rarely used in “relational theology”. Israel viewed themselves as a people of Abraham’s covenant, and the covenant was a controlling factor in how they lived and viewed their world.
The Abrahamic covenant was given before the Law, and was not fulfilled by the Law, but by God’s fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham (Rom. 4, Gal. 3:16-18). This covenant, which was meant to bless “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12), had been turned into a club for those of Jewish decent by the 1st Century BC. The Gospels tell how Jesus came and passed judgment on Israel and renewed the covenant so it would accomplish the original purpose. In His death and resurrection, Jesus became the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15), and as such is the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, foreshadowed in the Torah, sung about in the Psalms and looked forward to in the Prophets. In the renewed covenant Jew and Gentile are put on an equal footing, and together, can lay claim to the promises of Abraham .
“ Recent scholarship supports the view that Paul’s understanding of justification had less to do with individual righteousness through keeping the law and more to do with becoming part of a community of faith.” (Heppner) In fact, according to Wright, (The New Testament and the People of God) the 1st Century Jewish concept of covenant was so controlling that they would have even understood the term “forgiveness of sins” primarily as a way of putting away the whole nation’s sins, and only secondarily from an individual perspective. This is quite a different reading than I’ve been taught in the typical Protestant interpretation that exalts the individual’s perspective.
Further, Judaism was never considered a religion where people tried to earn their way into God’s favor (that does not mean that certain sects within Judaism didn’t try to do that). Rather, the Law was a sign that one was already in the covenant. This is called “covenantal nomism” in theological circles. “The meaning of "covenantal nomism" is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God's covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one's status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.” (Mattison)
So, what does this have to do with the NT? Jesus died on the cross and rose again justified before God and instituted a New Covenant. This implies that Jesus was interested in a “people of God”, not just individual salvation. Not only that, but Paul probably would not be writing from the context of individual salvation either. Our reading of Paul and what he meant by “justification” takes on a different meaning when we read it from a covenantal perspective, rather than trying to answer the question “How is one saved?” We need to be reading the NT from the perspective of the covenant, and the "people of God" rather than trying to find answers to questions concerning individual salvation.
Additionally, if the Law was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, and not a system of legalism, as the Reformers have taught us, and Paul was not concerned with addressing legalism, the meaning of "justification by faith" my take on a different meaning too....
This is too long as it is, so it will have to wait for another post...
The Abrahamic covenant was given before the Law, and was not fulfilled by the Law, but by God’s fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham (Rom. 4, Gal. 3:16-18). This covenant, which was meant to bless “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12), had been turned into a club for those of Jewish decent by the 1st Century BC. The Gospels tell how Jesus came and passed judgment on Israel and renewed the covenant so it would accomplish the original purpose. In His death and resurrection, Jesus became the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15), and as such is the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, foreshadowed in the Torah, sung about in the Psalms and looked forward to in the Prophets. In the renewed covenant Jew and Gentile are put on an equal footing, and together, can lay claim to the promises of Abraham .
“ Recent scholarship supports the view that Paul’s understanding of justification had less to do with individual righteousness through keeping the law and more to do with becoming part of a community of faith.” (Heppner) In fact, according to Wright, (The New Testament and the People of God) the 1st Century Jewish concept of covenant was so controlling that they would have even understood the term “forgiveness of sins” primarily as a way of putting away the whole nation’s sins, and only secondarily from an individual perspective. This is quite a different reading than I’ve been taught in the typical Protestant interpretation that exalts the individual’s perspective.
Further, Judaism was never considered a religion where people tried to earn their way into God’s favor (that does not mean that certain sects within Judaism didn’t try to do that). Rather, the Law was a sign that one was already in the covenant. This is called “covenantal nomism” in theological circles. “The meaning of "covenantal nomism" is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God's covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one's status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.” (Mattison)
So, what does this have to do with the NT? Jesus died on the cross and rose again justified before God and instituted a New Covenant. This implies that Jesus was interested in a “people of God”, not just individual salvation. Not only that, but Paul probably would not be writing from the context of individual salvation either. Our reading of Paul and what he meant by “justification” takes on a different meaning when we read it from a covenantal perspective, rather than trying to answer the question “How is one saved?” We need to be reading the NT from the perspective of the covenant, and the "people of God" rather than trying to find answers to questions concerning individual salvation.
Additionally, if the Law was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, and not a system of legalism, as the Reformers have taught us, and Paul was not concerned with addressing legalism, the meaning of "justification by faith" my take on a different meaning too....
This is too long as it is, so it will have to wait for another post...
Friday, May 27, 2005
What did Paul Mean By Justification?
As I work through my beliefs and put them to work in my life I usually go through a process where I know that something “doesn’t fit” and I keep searching until it does. I’ll confess to being a theological hack, but I do see the import of working out what I believe. I’ve been going through that process with the “relational theology” paradigm (I’ll use that term, for lack of a better word, to describe the theology that focuses on a personal relationship with God as the primary focus of the Christian faith, a heavy emphasis on Grace vs. Law, and an individual, spiritualized concept of salvation). There are some points that I really agree and resonate with, but underneath I’ve been uncomfortable about where the theology “ends up” because it does not take into account many key themes of the Bible. So for the next few posts I’m going to attempt to “work out” some of my issues....
Recent scholarship has realized that traditional Reformed understandings of many of Paul’s writings, especially Romans and Galatians, have been removed from their historical contexts. In one of my previous posts I demonstrated one reason to keep the Gospels in the context of the 1st-2nd century Jew. Understanding the context of Paul’s writings gives a very different view of soteriology (the study of how we are saved).
One of the shortcomings in “relational theology” that I’ve run into revolves around the conversation of Law vs. Grace. The argument typically goes: Judaism was a system that tried to earn the favor of God by doing “works of the Law” (Gal. 2:16). This was a legalistic effort to merit God’s favor and thus, was opposed to being “justified by faith” or grace alone.
I’ve noticed that this leads to a view that the Law is evil, and any form of effort or response becomes part of the evil Law. This leads to a passive view of faith that is concerned with “being rather than doing” (I’m not saying that is all bad, but “being” should lead to “doing”, rather than be put up against it.) and suspect of any positive action. Additionally, Biblical responses such as repentance, belief, obedience and faith are discounted and considered as "works".
One argument is that this interpretation of 1st-2nd Century Judaism is totally influenced by Martin Luther and other Reformed theologians who put Judaism in the place of the legalistic 16th century institutional church. I can see why, given the tone of Galatians, and confess that I have made this mistake.
“Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. In fact Judaism in general has come to be construed as the very antithesis of Christianity. Judaism is earthly, carnal, proud; Christianity is heavenly, spiritual, humble. It is a tragic irony that all of Judaism has come to be viewed in terms of the worst vices of the sixteenth-century institutionalized church.”
“When Judaism is thus cast in the role of the medieval church, Paul's protests become very Lutheran and traditional Protestant theology is reinforced in all its particulars, along with its limitations. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul's debate lies at the very heart of the doctrine of justification in the church.”
“Traditional Protestant soteriology, focused as it is on the plight of the conscience-smitten individual before a holy God, must be carved out of the rock of human pretentiousness in order to be cogent. Thus it is no accident that the Reformers interpreted the burning issues of Paul's day in light of their struggle against legalism. "The Reformers' interpretation of Paul," writes Krister Stendahl, "rests on an analogism when Pauline statements about Faith and Works, Law and Gospel, Jews and Gentiles are read in the framework of late medieval piety. The Law, the Torah, with its specific requirements of circumcision and food restrictions becomes a general principle of 'legalism' in religious matters." (Mattison)
So, the questions are:
I’ll write some more on this later as I try to do this in “bite-size” pieces. I look forward to hearing other points of view....
Recent scholarship has realized that traditional Reformed understandings of many of Paul’s writings, especially Romans and Galatians, have been removed from their historical contexts. In one of my previous posts I demonstrated one reason to keep the Gospels in the context of the 1st-2nd century Jew. Understanding the context of Paul’s writings gives a very different view of soteriology (the study of how we are saved).
One of the shortcomings in “relational theology” that I’ve run into revolves around the conversation of Law vs. Grace. The argument typically goes: Judaism was a system that tried to earn the favor of God by doing “works of the Law” (Gal. 2:16). This was a legalistic effort to merit God’s favor and thus, was opposed to being “justified by faith” or grace alone.
I’ve noticed that this leads to a view that the Law is evil, and any form of effort or response becomes part of the evil Law. This leads to a passive view of faith that is concerned with “being rather than doing” (I’m not saying that is all bad, but “being” should lead to “doing”, rather than be put up against it.) and suspect of any positive action. Additionally, Biblical responses such as repentance, belief, obedience and faith are discounted and considered as "works".
One argument is that this interpretation of 1st-2nd Century Judaism is totally influenced by Martin Luther and other Reformed theologians who put Judaism in the place of the legalistic 16th century institutional church. I can see why, given the tone of Galatians, and confess that I have made this mistake.
“Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. In fact Judaism in general has come to be construed as the very antithesis of Christianity. Judaism is earthly, carnal, proud; Christianity is heavenly, spiritual, humble. It is a tragic irony that all of Judaism has come to be viewed in terms of the worst vices of the sixteenth-century institutionalized church.”
“When Judaism is thus cast in the role of the medieval church, Paul's protests become very Lutheran and traditional Protestant theology is reinforced in all its particulars, along with its limitations. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul's debate lies at the very heart of the doctrine of justification in the church.”
“Traditional Protestant soteriology, focused as it is on the plight of the conscience-smitten individual before a holy God, must be carved out of the rock of human pretentiousness in order to be cogent. Thus it is no accident that the Reformers interpreted the burning issues of Paul's day in light of their struggle against legalism. "The Reformers' interpretation of Paul," writes Krister Stendahl, "rests on an analogism when Pauline statements about Faith and Works, Law and Gospel, Jews and Gentiles are read in the framework of late medieval piety. The Law, the Torah, with its specific requirements of circumcision and food restrictions becomes a general principle of 'legalism' in religious matters." (Mattison)
So, the questions are:
- What was 1st century Judaism if it wasn’t a legalisitic system to merit God’s favor?
- What was the context of Paul’s writings if not a battle against legalism?
- What was Paul really concerned about?
- What does “justification by faith” mean in that context?
I’ll write some more on this later as I try to do this in “bite-size” pieces. I look forward to hearing other points of view....
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Nice and Hell
We've had a busy weekend! My graduation, #2's 8th birthday party and a fundraiser for Lindsey's foundation. Lot's of fun! Trish did a great job and a lot of hard work! Darrin and Penny's place is THE place to have an outdoor party. Jamie makes some mean margaritas! I'll try to post a couple of pics tomorrow.
Today. Cut grass and put in an air conditioning unit to keep the young'uns cool. Now I'm off to snuggle my love....see the last post....
Seems like change might be in the air for us...
Oh, yeah! Lots of conversations about hell. I'm not sure I'm really interested....but if you are here, here, here, and here. Much of this is in response to McClaren's new book.
I like this comment:
"The gospel, for McLaren, is about kingdom in the here and now and it is about a community wherein that kingdom vision has its way."
Today. Cut grass and put in an air conditioning unit to keep the young'uns cool. Now I'm off to snuggle my love....see the last post....
Seems like change might be in the air for us...
Oh, yeah! Lots of conversations about hell. I'm not sure I'm really interested....but if you are here, here, here, and here. Much of this is in response to McClaren's new book.
I like this comment:
"The gospel, for McLaren, is about kingdom in the here and now and it is about a community wherein that kingdom vision has its way."
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Poll
Has your deepening relationship with God effected your sex-life?
This topic is for married adults, over age 21. I am not liable for the content in the comments of this post. Please read at your own risk.
This topic is for married adults, over age 21. I am not liable for the content in the comments of this post. Please read at your own risk.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Celebrate good times, come on!
Bored at work? Try Guess-the-Google! Don't ask, just try it.
I walk the stage to get my diploma Saturday. It's kind of bitter-sweet for me. We had to sacrifice quite a bit for me to finish college, and the payoff has been less than spectacular. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that I finished, but our plans have changed so drastically since we first started this journey that the degree is not exactly helpful....who knows down the road.... Also, as if you didn't know this, I love to learn. I love ideas. So, in that way I miss school....
The good news is that we will be having a little graduation bash for some family and friends, coupled with #2 daughters birthday party! I really look forward to that! Let me run a quote by you that I heard the other day about celebration:
The Church doesn't really have anything to say to the world until we can throw better parties.
This got me thinking...How many church parties have I been to in organized religion? Let's see: I've been to some really exciting potlucks. . . I've eaten a few wild and crazy casseroles in my day. We just had National Day of Prayer at the town square. . .they did give away some free frozen custard (gotta have something for the bait and switch, right?). Our services are supposed to be a party. . . yawn. . .although I have been to some charismatic services where I swore some folks had been sippin' the sauce.
I don't think Jesus was afraid of a good party as I read it. And, he wasn't going to stuffy evangelical Christian parties either! He was turning water in to wine brotha! AFTER people were already getting soused! He was at the "sinner" parties. AND THEY LIKED HIM!
So, with that in mind, we are gonna have some fun to celebrate my graduation. A jumphouse sidewalk chalk, and squirt guns for the kiddos, adult beverages and washers for the adults (after a few adult beverages I may jump in the jumphouse too!), food, friends ...sounds like Kingdom Come to me!
I walk the stage to get my diploma Saturday. It's kind of bitter-sweet for me. We had to sacrifice quite a bit for me to finish college, and the payoff has been less than spectacular. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that I finished, but our plans have changed so drastically since we first started this journey that the degree is not exactly helpful....who knows down the road.... Also, as if you didn't know this, I love to learn. I love ideas. So, in that way I miss school....
The good news is that we will be having a little graduation bash for some family and friends, coupled with #2 daughters birthday party! I really look forward to that! Let me run a quote by you that I heard the other day about celebration:
The Church doesn't really have anything to say to the world until we can throw better parties.
This got me thinking...How many church parties have I been to in organized religion? Let's see: I've been to some really exciting potlucks. . . I've eaten a few wild and crazy casseroles in my day. We just had National Day of Prayer at the town square. . .they did give away some free frozen custard (gotta have something for the bait and switch, right?). Our services are supposed to be a party. . . yawn. . .although I have been to some charismatic services where I swore some folks had been sippin' the sauce.
I don't think Jesus was afraid of a good party as I read it. And, he wasn't going to stuffy evangelical Christian parties either! He was turning water in to wine brotha! AFTER people were already getting soused! He was at the "sinner" parties. AND THEY LIKED HIM!
So, with that in mind, we are gonna have some fun to celebrate my graduation. A jumphouse sidewalk chalk, and squirt guns for the kiddos, adult beverages and washers for the adults (after a few adult beverages I may jump in the jumphouse too!), food, friends ...sounds like Kingdom Come to me!
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Talents
In exploring my own presuppositions about the Bible I've discovered a few things.
Jesus is going to be gone a long time. He gave us all resources to use for His glory. We better use them wisely, for His glory, or we will be judged when He comes back.
This sounds like the typical interpretation I've heard around most churches. Sounds reasonable, and it's a good way to manipulate people into "kingdom work". The trouble is that it is totally wrong!
Instead of asking what these stories tell me, first I'm going to ask: How would the 1st Century Jew hear these stories? THEN I can ask what the story tells me and the Church.
The context: Jesus is leaving the Temple and talking to the disciples about the coming judgement that will fall on the Temple and it's system (Math. 24).
Historical Background: Israel has been under occupation for a long time. They are waiting for the Messiah who will restore the land, and redeem them from the captivity of the pagans. There is a general belief that the time is ripe for the Messiah to free Israel. Messianic fervor is common.
The important part of interpreting this text is that Jesus is Yahweh! Jesus is God. He has come to Israel in a time that they didn't expect and He is judging the religious system. The kingdom of Israel has failed it's mission : To be light to the world (Math 5:15-16), and bless all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:1-3). He is initiating His kingdom, which will be one of love, grace, justice, healing. . . A kingdom full of people who "turn the other cheek", "walk the extra mile", feed the hungry, comfort the stranger, accept the outcast, heal the sick, will be inclusive of all people. . . What has Israel done? Instead of blessing the world, they got hypnotized looking at their own bellybuttons. They turned inward. They kept the light for themselves. They turned what was meant for the world rules for entrance into a club.
Mat 21:43 Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.
In this background Jesus tells the disciples the Parable of the Talents. Did he tell it to the Church? No. Did He tell it to me? No. He told it to a band of 1st Century Jewish followers who thought they were riding the coat-tails of the next Messiah. A group of guys who had no clue they were following Yahweh.
In this context, the parable takes on a different meaning. It was not about being faithful while Jesus was away, but that Israel was being judged. Israel was the third servant who had done nothing with what he had been given, and was now being judged by Yahweh in the flesh.
Does this parable have any meaning for the Church, or individuals within the Church? Yes. Can the Church, or the individuals who comprise the Church, be guilty of the same thing today? I would say that much of organized religion especially is guilty of looking at their own bellybutton instead of living in the Kingdom. I would say it is just as tempting to relegate the Kingdom to a "just God and me" mentality that also shuts out the world.
This is not as "pretty" of an interpretation as you might get elsewhere. It is not so applicable to "our circumstances". It is not about being ready for the return of Christ. It is not about living in fear that we have done enough. But, it is about judgement. The judgement of a religious system that was being judged by God in the flesh.
I challenge you to read Jesus' Parables with this context in mind. I believe they will begin to make more sense. . .
- I tend to read the Bible according to what it has to say TO ME, or the Church.
- I've interepreted much of what I've read with very little understanding of the history of Israel or the Jewish people.
- Because I have not understood the history of Israel, or the 1st Century Jewish worldview, I have tended to remove the NT writings from their original setting and tended toward "over-spiritualized" interpretations.
- I have totally misunderstood some of the narratives and teachings of Jesus because of numbers 1 and 2.
- If I've misunderstood the narratives and teachings of Jesus, there is a good chance I've misunderstood Jesus.
Jesus is going to be gone a long time. He gave us all resources to use for His glory. We better use them wisely, for His glory, or we will be judged when He comes back.
This sounds like the typical interpretation I've heard around most churches. Sounds reasonable, and it's a good way to manipulate people into "kingdom work". The trouble is that it is totally wrong!
Instead of asking what these stories tell me, first I'm going to ask: How would the 1st Century Jew hear these stories? THEN I can ask what the story tells me and the Church.
The context: Jesus is leaving the Temple and talking to the disciples about the coming judgement that will fall on the Temple and it's system (Math. 24).
Historical Background: Israel has been under occupation for a long time. They are waiting for the Messiah who will restore the land, and redeem them from the captivity of the pagans. There is a general belief that the time is ripe for the Messiah to free Israel. Messianic fervor is common.
The important part of interpreting this text is that Jesus is Yahweh! Jesus is God. He has come to Israel in a time that they didn't expect and He is judging the religious system. The kingdom of Israel has failed it's mission : To be light to the world (Math 5:15-16), and bless all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:1-3). He is initiating His kingdom, which will be one of love, grace, justice, healing. . . A kingdom full of people who "turn the other cheek", "walk the extra mile", feed the hungry, comfort the stranger, accept the outcast, heal the sick, will be inclusive of all people. . . What has Israel done? Instead of blessing the world, they got hypnotized looking at their own bellybuttons. They turned inward. They kept the light for themselves. They turned what was meant for the world rules for entrance into a club.
Mat 21:43 Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.
In this background Jesus tells the disciples the Parable of the Talents. Did he tell it to the Church? No. Did He tell it to me? No. He told it to a band of 1st Century Jewish followers who thought they were riding the coat-tails of the next Messiah. A group of guys who had no clue they were following Yahweh.
In this context, the parable takes on a different meaning. It was not about being faithful while Jesus was away, but that Israel was being judged. Israel was the third servant who had done nothing with what he had been given, and was now being judged by Yahweh in the flesh.
Does this parable have any meaning for the Church, or individuals within the Church? Yes. Can the Church, or the individuals who comprise the Church, be guilty of the same thing today? I would say that much of organized religion especially is guilty of looking at their own bellybutton instead of living in the Kingdom. I would say it is just as tempting to relegate the Kingdom to a "just God and me" mentality that also shuts out the world.
This is not as "pretty" of an interpretation as you might get elsewhere. It is not so applicable to "our circumstances". It is not about being ready for the return of Christ. It is not about living in fear that we have done enough. But, it is about judgement. The judgement of a religious system that was being judged by God in the flesh.
I challenge you to read Jesus' Parables with this context in mind. I believe they will begin to make more sense. . .
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The God Journey and our journey
The latest conversation at The God Journey is a gem, so give it a listen if you are interested in a non-threatening conversation about "what the church is".... Plus, my bride gets the last word!
We have been thinking about opening up a music store in our little town. Actually, our little town is becoming a medium town. We are taking some initial steps...putting the fleece out, as it were. I feel very at peace about it, which is rare for me when big decisions loom in the near future.
It is no secret that this night job is hard on me and on our family. We are not sure where the money for my student loan will come from, but it is time for me to quit. Last night, I stopped by a new restaraunt in town, Wings-To-Go, and it turns out one of the kid's Dad's from the latchkey program where I work, is co-owner. We got to talking and he is looking for an assistant manager type person and wanted to know if I knew anyone who was available.....hmmm....I like wings too!
I was hoping for some more conversation in my previous post....maybe I write to much....
We have been thinking about opening up a music store in our little town. Actually, our little town is becoming a medium town. We are taking some initial steps...putting the fleece out, as it were. I feel very at peace about it, which is rare for me when big decisions loom in the near future.
It is no secret that this night job is hard on me and on our family. We are not sure where the money for my student loan will come from, but it is time for me to quit. Last night, I stopped by a new restaraunt in town, Wings-To-Go, and it turns out one of the kid's Dad's from the latchkey program where I work, is co-owner. We got to talking and he is looking for an assistant manager type person and wanted to know if I knew anyone who was available.....hmmm....I like wings too!
I was hoping for some more conversation in my previous post....maybe I write to much....
Monday, May 09, 2005
The Future - Part 2
You might be wondering what any of this has to do with Jesus. I did just post some stuff about Jesus being central, right? Here’s my short answer: EVERYTHING! Christ is THE central figure in this Story. In fact, He is the beginning, middle and end.
In the beginning God created…it was good. Man decided to know good and evil outside of a relationship with the Creator and brought not only a curse on all mankind, but on all of creation (Gen. 3). God set apart a group of people, called Israel, through who God would heal the world. Instead of healing the world, Israel looked at their own bellybutton and “hid their light under a bowl”. God sent His Son, Jesus, to remind Israel of their purpose, redeem the world, and heal creation. Jesus passed His authority on to a new Israel; an Israel comprised of any race who would follow Him, the Church.
In this Five Act Story that we find ourselves in, we are left without a script. But, we have the previous four acts, and we have some clues to how the Story ends that will help us improvise in the meantime. One of the critical clues we have to help us improvise is now this Story will end. I seem to remember being taught in a business class: “Begin with the end in mind.” In this grand Story that is exactly what God has done. So, what if we started thinking about how this Story is going to end… Here is where I want to focus: All creation is in the process of being healed by the Creator and will culminate in a new heaven and new earth. (Rev. 21).
As I read this passage, it sounds like this should be something the Church is looking forward too. A place where God’ rule and reign are done perfectly. A place where everything that was broken, cursed and skewed in the Fall are healed, blessed and set straight in the new heaven and new earth. This is Good News! But, don’t think this is just some future event. “This world is not my home, I’m just a passin’ through”…NOOOO! Jesus said that His Gospel was: Mk 1:15 “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” The kingdom is here! The kingdom is now! Respond to it! Enter into it! Join the party!
What does Jesus do after he announces access to the kingdom? Jesus was enacting, and then explaining, the kingdom. He begins to cast out demons, give sight to the blind, heal the sick and lame… Why? Was he showing off his power? No! He was implementing this kingdom, which is now available to all who will choose it. He is giving a foretaste of the time when there will be no more death, or mourning, or crying, or pain! He is beginning the implementation of the new heaven and the new earth. Everything Jesus is doing is looking forward to the future.
Now let me put my personal experience, and belief system in this framework. For the past year or so God has been teaching me that this journey is about relationships. My relationship with Him, and my relationships with others. I will admit that my view has been centered around “me and God”, but I don’t think it stops there. If I stop there this whole kingdom project becomes about me. Much of the time, in practice, I act like the world revolves around me anyway, so it’s time for a course correction…. I think the Bible is clear that the Church is here as a little piece of the kingdom on Earth FOR THE SAKE OF THE WORLD.
The BIG STORY going on here is about God and world. It isn’t about the Law. It isn’t about you, and it isn’t about me. Our individual stories are incidental to the Big Story. It’s not that our stories don’t matter, they just need to be seen in light of the big picture. And the big picture is that God, through Jesus, is making all things new in the new heaven and new earth. Everything that went wrong in Eden is set right in the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21).
Does my personal, individual relationship with God matter? Yes! But not just to me. It matters to the world. Why? Because it is a foretaste of the time when Jer. 31:34
No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
We’ve all read the “one anothers” in the Bible. Why are our relationships with each other in the Body so important? Because in the new heaven and new earth the consequences of sin are fully removed and true community will exist without the shame of the Fall. We will “cast aside our fig-leaves” and “live naked” before each other and God. Creation will be restored and renewed to the way God originally intended it. We, the Church, are a witness to the world that a new time is coming when that will be reality for everyone!
In this context my transformation into Christ-likeness takes on a new meaning. Sure, God wants me to be complete and whole. But, it is not just for my sake. It is so that those missing from the Family can witness the power of kingdom come. It is so the world can see that there will be a time when “everything is made new.”
Gathering. Hmmm. Here’s one where I’ve been stretched. What are the implications of how we gather in light of the now and future kingdom? Every nation, race, people and tongue will be represented. It’s a very “large gathering”. There is “corporate” worship going on... Does this kind of gathering have a message or purpose for the world?
Anyway, the bottom line is this: The Church exists for the sake of the world. We are a foretaste of the kingdom of God which will be fully revealed in the new heaven and new earth. We are a piece of the kingdom on earth, not just for our sake, for our healing, for our renewal, for our comfort, for our joy, but so the world can see kingdom now! As we improvise our part in the Story, we do so in light of the parts of the script we know, and our story becomes part of The Story...
What other implications do you see in our beliefs and practice in light of the Story?
In the beginning God created…it was good. Man decided to know good and evil outside of a relationship with the Creator and brought not only a curse on all mankind, but on all of creation (Gen. 3). God set apart a group of people, called Israel, through who God would heal the world. Instead of healing the world, Israel looked at their own bellybutton and “hid their light under a bowl”. God sent His Son, Jesus, to remind Israel of their purpose, redeem the world, and heal creation. Jesus passed His authority on to a new Israel; an Israel comprised of any race who would follow Him, the Church.
In this Five Act Story that we find ourselves in, we are left without a script. But, we have the previous four acts, and we have some clues to how the Story ends that will help us improvise in the meantime. One of the critical clues we have to help us improvise is now this Story will end. I seem to remember being taught in a business class: “Begin with the end in mind.” In this grand Story that is exactly what God has done. So, what if we started thinking about how this Story is going to end… Here is where I want to focus: All creation is in the process of being healed by the Creator and will culminate in a new heaven and new earth. (Rev. 21).
As I read this passage, it sounds like this should be something the Church is looking forward too. A place where God’ rule and reign are done perfectly. A place where everything that was broken, cursed and skewed in the Fall are healed, blessed and set straight in the new heaven and new earth. This is Good News! But, don’t think this is just some future event. “This world is not my home, I’m just a passin’ through”…NOOOO! Jesus said that His Gospel was: Mk 1:15 “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” The kingdom is here! The kingdom is now! Respond to it! Enter into it! Join the party!
What does Jesus do after he announces access to the kingdom? Jesus was enacting, and then explaining, the kingdom. He begins to cast out demons, give sight to the blind, heal the sick and lame… Why? Was he showing off his power? No! He was implementing this kingdom, which is now available to all who will choose it. He is giving a foretaste of the time when there will be no more death, or mourning, or crying, or pain! He is beginning the implementation of the new heaven and the new earth. Everything Jesus is doing is looking forward to the future.
Now let me put my personal experience, and belief system in this framework. For the past year or so God has been teaching me that this journey is about relationships. My relationship with Him, and my relationships with others. I will admit that my view has been centered around “me and God”, but I don’t think it stops there. If I stop there this whole kingdom project becomes about me. Much of the time, in practice, I act like the world revolves around me anyway, so it’s time for a course correction…. I think the Bible is clear that the Church is here as a little piece of the kingdom on Earth FOR THE SAKE OF THE WORLD.
The BIG STORY going on here is about God and world. It isn’t about the Law. It isn’t about you, and it isn’t about me. Our individual stories are incidental to the Big Story. It’s not that our stories don’t matter, they just need to be seen in light of the big picture. And the big picture is that God, through Jesus, is making all things new in the new heaven and new earth. Everything that went wrong in Eden is set right in the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21).
Does my personal, individual relationship with God matter? Yes! But not just to me. It matters to the world. Why? Because it is a foretaste of the time when Jer. 31:34
No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
We’ve all read the “one anothers” in the Bible. Why are our relationships with each other in the Body so important? Because in the new heaven and new earth the consequences of sin are fully removed and true community will exist without the shame of the Fall. We will “cast aside our fig-leaves” and “live naked” before each other and God. Creation will be restored and renewed to the way God originally intended it. We, the Church, are a witness to the world that a new time is coming when that will be reality for everyone!
In this context my transformation into Christ-likeness takes on a new meaning. Sure, God wants me to be complete and whole. But, it is not just for my sake. It is so that those missing from the Family can witness the power of kingdom come. It is so the world can see that there will be a time when “everything is made new.”
Gathering. Hmmm. Here’s one where I’ve been stretched. What are the implications of how we gather in light of the now and future kingdom? Every nation, race, people and tongue will be represented. It’s a very “large gathering”. There is “corporate” worship going on... Does this kind of gathering have a message or purpose for the world?
Anyway, the bottom line is this: The Church exists for the sake of the world. We are a foretaste of the kingdom of God which will be fully revealed in the new heaven and new earth. We are a piece of the kingdom on earth, not just for our sake, for our healing, for our renewal, for our comfort, for our joy, but so the world can see kingdom now! As we improvise our part in the Story, we do so in light of the parts of the script we know, and our story becomes part of The Story...
What other implications do you see in our beliefs and practice in light of the Story?
Saturday, May 07, 2005
The Future Pt. 1 - God's Story
Before I get into what I really want to talk about I want to give some background. I hope you will read this and be patient. I think there is some very helpful stuff here about how we approach the Bible and the Gospel. I strongly encourage you to read the article. I'll get to the point in my next post. See if you don't resonate with this. . .
I've been giving some thought to how I look at the Bible and the Gospel. To be honest, many times when I read the Bible I am asking God to reveal Himself to me. Now, there is not necessarily anything wrong with that, but when I think that the any book of the Bible was written directly to me, for my benefit, I am quite likely to come up with interpretations that are askew. The fact is, the books of the Bible were not written to me, nor was their purpose to be for my benefit. They were written in a time that was much different from mine, to people in a TOTALLY different culture. If I don't take that into account I am likely to come up with some weird interpretations.
Couple this with the fact that the various ways that Modern theologians have used the Bible have not really been helpful. Systematic Theology has serious problems because it is rooted in a "scientific" way of summing up the Bible. Many scholars have their opinions and try to use proof-texts to back up their positions, taking verses totally out of context. Additionally, there are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible in itself has authority which leads to all kinds of abuse... Along comes N.T. Wright with a different way that Bible has authority.
Wright then asks, "Is the Bible a depository for 'timeless truth' "? That fact is, that the Bible is culturally conditioned. It was written to certain people at a certain time in history. It is not, and was never meant to be somewhere we go to find "particular answers to particular questions". When systematic theology divided the Bible into neat little chunks for easier consumption it is making the Bible into something it was never meant to be.
Wright points out that the more Evangelical churches say they are "Scripturally based", the more divided they become. "It seems to be the case that the more that you insist that you are based on the Bible, the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking that they have got biblical truth right."
To make a long article short, how do we read the Bible then? In what way does it have authority? Wright rightly points out that it is not the Bible that has authority, but God. Hooray! Finally a theologian that gets it!
And the notion of God’s authority, which we have to understand before we understand what we mean by the authority of the scripture, is based on the fact that this God is the loving, wise, creator, redeemer God. And his authority is his sovereign exercise of those powers; his love and wise creations and redemption. What is he doing? He is not simply organizing the world. He is, as we see and know in Christ and by the Spirit, judging and remaking the world. What he does authoritatively he does with this intent. God is not a celestial information service to whom you can apply for answers on difficult questions. Nor is he a heavenly ticket agency to whom you can go for moral and doctrinal permits or passports to salvation. He does not stand outside the human process and merely comment on it or merely issue you with certain tickets that you might need. Those views would imply either a deist’s God or a legalist’s God, not the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ and the Spirit. And it must be said that a great many views of biblical authority imply one or other of those sub-Christian alternatives.
But, once we say that God’s authority is like that, we find that there is a challenge issued to the world’s view of authority and to the church’s view of authority. Authority is not the power to control people, and crush them, and keep them in little boxes. The church often tries to do that – to tidy people up. Nor is the Bible, as the vehicle of God’s authority, meant to be information for the legalist. We have to apply some central reformation insights to the concept of authority itself. It seems to me that the Reformation, once more, did not go quite far enough in this respect, and was always in danger of picking up the mediaeval view of authority and simply continuing it with, as was often said, a paper pope instead of a human one. Rather, God’s authority vested in scripture is designed, as all God’s authority is designed, to liberate human beings, to judge and condemn evil and sin in the world in order to set people free to be fully human. That’s what God is in the business of doing. That is what his authority is there for. And when we use a shorthand phrase like “authority of scripture” that is what we ought to be meaning. It is an authority with this shape and character, this purpose and goal.
How, in the Bible, does God exercise his authority?
Then, we have to ask, if we are to get to the authority of scripture – How does God exercise that authority? Again and again, in the biblical story itself we see that he does so through human agents anointed and equipped by the Holy Spirit. And this is itself an expression of love, because he does not will simply to come into the world in a blinding flash of light and obliterate all opposition. He wants to reveal himself meaningfully within the space/time universe, not just passing it by tangentially; to reveal himself in judgment and in mercy in a way which will save people. So, we get the prophets. We get obedient writers in the Old Testament, not only prophets but those who wrote the psalms and so on. At the climax of the story we get Jesus himself as the great prophet, but how much more than a prophet. And, we then get Jesus’ people as the anointed ones.
To simplify Wrights view, the Bible is authoritative in that it is the Story of God. A five act play consisting of Act1: Creation, Act2: The Fall, Act3: Israel, Act:4 Jesus, Act5;Scene1: The New Testament, Act5;Scene2: Missing.
Suppose there exists a Shakespeare play whose fifth act had been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, that it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate actually to write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were, to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.
Wrights view is that we are actors in this play in which our "script" is missing. We have to improvise our part in this Story in light of what has happened before us, and the clues we have been given in how the Story will end. This frees us from being bogged down in the minutae of Modern exegesis and frees us to interpret the Story in the circumstances we find ourselves in today. Each generation must "implement" the Gospel for themselves, in their context, trying to be faithful to the Story. This view of authority does not seek to manipulate with power and control, or merely give information, but it is consistent with how Jesus used His authority during his time on Earth: telling stories.
That, in fact, is (I believe) one of the reasons why God has given us so much story, so much narrative in scripture. Story authority, as Jesus knew only too well, is the authority that really works. Throw a rule book at people’s heads, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world; you invite them to share a world-view, or better still, a “God-view”. That, actually, is what the parables are all about. They offer, as all genuine Christian story-telling does, a world-view which, as someone comes into it and finds how compelling it is, quietly shatters the world-view that they were in already. Stories determine how people see themselves and how they see the world. Stories determine how they experience God and the world and themselves and others. Great revolutionary movements have told stories about the past and present and future. They have invited people to see themselves in that light, and people’s lives have been changed. If that happens at merely a human level, how much more when it is God himself, the creator, breathing through his word.
I've been giving some thought to how I look at the Bible and the Gospel. To be honest, many times when I read the Bible I am asking God to reveal Himself to me. Now, there is not necessarily anything wrong with that, but when I think that the any book of the Bible was written directly to me, for my benefit, I am quite likely to come up with interpretations that are askew. The fact is, the books of the Bible were not written to me, nor was their purpose to be for my benefit. They were written in a time that was much different from mine, to people in a TOTALLY different culture. If I don't take that into account I am likely to come up with some weird interpretations.
Couple this with the fact that the various ways that Modern theologians have used the Bible have not really been helpful. Systematic Theology has serious problems because it is rooted in a "scientific" way of summing up the Bible. Many scholars have their opinions and try to use proof-texts to back up their positions, taking verses totally out of context. Additionally, there are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible in itself has authority which leads to all kinds of abuse... Along comes N.T. Wright with a different way that Bible has authority.
When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation. “Authority” is the place where we go to find out the correct answers to key questions such as these. This notion, however, runs into all kinds of problems when we apply it to the Bible. Is that really what the Bible is for? Is it there to control the church? Is it there simply to look up the correct answers to questions that we, for some reason, already know?
As we read the Bible we discover that the answer to these questions seems in fact to be
“no”.
As we read the Bible we discover that the answer to these questions seems in fact to be
“no”.
Wright then asks, "Is the Bible a depository for 'timeless truth' "? That fact is, that the Bible is culturally conditioned. It was written to certain people at a certain time in history. It is not, and was never meant to be somewhere we go to find "particular answers to particular questions". When systematic theology divided the Bible into neat little chunks for easier consumption it is making the Bible into something it was never meant to be.
Wright points out that the more Evangelical churches say they are "Scripturally based", the more divided they become. "It seems to be the case that the more that you insist that you are based on the Bible, the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking that they have got biblical truth right."
To make a long article short, how do we read the Bible then? In what way does it have authority? Wright rightly points out that it is not the Bible that has authority, but God. Hooray! Finally a theologian that gets it!
Beginning, though, with explicit scriptural evidence about authority itself, we find soon
enough – this is obvious but is often ignored – that all authority does indeed belong to God.“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. God says this, God says that, and it is done. Now, if that is not authoritative, I don’t know what is. God calls Abraham; hespeaks authoritatively. God exercises authority in great dynamic events (in Exodus, the Exile and Return). In the New Testament, we discover that authority is ultimately invested in Christ: “all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” Then, perhaps to our
surprise, authority is invested in the apostles: Paul wrote whole letters in order to make thispoint crystal clear (in a manner of speaking). This authority, we discover, has to do with theHoly Spirit. And the whole church is then, and thereby, given authority to work within
God’s world as his accredited agent(s). From an exceedingly quick survey, we are forced tosay: authority, according to the Bible itself, is vested in God himself, Father, Son and Spirit.
enough – this is obvious but is often ignored – that all authority does indeed belong to God.“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. God says this, God says that, and it is done. Now, if that is not authoritative, I don’t know what is. God calls Abraham; hespeaks authoritatively. God exercises authority in great dynamic events (in Exodus, the Exile and Return). In the New Testament, we discover that authority is ultimately invested in Christ: “all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” Then, perhaps to our
surprise, authority is invested in the apostles: Paul wrote whole letters in order to make thispoint crystal clear (in a manner of speaking). This authority, we discover, has to do with theHoly Spirit. And the whole church is then, and thereby, given authority to work within
God’s world as his accredited agent(s). From an exceedingly quick survey, we are forced tosay: authority, according to the Bible itself, is vested in God himself, Father, Son and Spirit.
And the notion of God’s authority, which we have to understand before we understand what we mean by the authority of the scripture, is based on the fact that this God is the loving, wise, creator, redeemer God. And his authority is his sovereign exercise of those powers; his love and wise creations and redemption. What is he doing? He is not simply organizing the world. He is, as we see and know in Christ and by the Spirit, judging and remaking the world. What he does authoritatively he does with this intent. God is not a celestial information service to whom you can apply for answers on difficult questions. Nor is he a heavenly ticket agency to whom you can go for moral and doctrinal permits or passports to salvation. He does not stand outside the human process and merely comment on it or merely issue you with certain tickets that you might need. Those views would imply either a deist’s God or a legalist’s God, not the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ and the Spirit. And it must be said that a great many views of biblical authority imply one or other of those sub-Christian alternatives.
But, once we say that God’s authority is like that, we find that there is a challenge issued to the world’s view of authority and to the church’s view of authority. Authority is not the power to control people, and crush them, and keep them in little boxes. The church often tries to do that – to tidy people up. Nor is the Bible, as the vehicle of God’s authority, meant to be information for the legalist. We have to apply some central reformation insights to the concept of authority itself. It seems to me that the Reformation, once more, did not go quite far enough in this respect, and was always in danger of picking up the mediaeval view of authority and simply continuing it with, as was often said, a paper pope instead of a human one. Rather, God’s authority vested in scripture is designed, as all God’s authority is designed, to liberate human beings, to judge and condemn evil and sin in the world in order to set people free to be fully human. That’s what God is in the business of doing. That is what his authority is there for. And when we use a shorthand phrase like “authority of scripture” that is what we ought to be meaning. It is an authority with this shape and character, this purpose and goal.
How, in the Bible, does God exercise his authority?
Then, we have to ask, if we are to get to the authority of scripture – How does God exercise that authority? Again and again, in the biblical story itself we see that he does so through human agents anointed and equipped by the Holy Spirit. And this is itself an expression of love, because he does not will simply to come into the world in a blinding flash of light and obliterate all opposition. He wants to reveal himself meaningfully within the space/time universe, not just passing it by tangentially; to reveal himself in judgment and in mercy in a way which will save people. So, we get the prophets. We get obedient writers in the Old Testament, not only prophets but those who wrote the psalms and so on. At the climax of the story we get Jesus himself as the great prophet, but how much more than a prophet. And, we then get Jesus’ people as the anointed ones.
To simplify Wrights view, the Bible is authoritative in that it is the Story of God. A five act play consisting of Act1: Creation, Act2: The Fall, Act3: Israel, Act:4 Jesus, Act5;Scene1: The New Testament, Act5;Scene2: Missing.
Suppose there exists a Shakespeare play whose fifth act had been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, that it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate actually to write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were, to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.
Wrights view is that we are actors in this play in which our "script" is missing. We have to improvise our part in this Story in light of what has happened before us, and the clues we have been given in how the Story will end. This frees us from being bogged down in the minutae of Modern exegesis and frees us to interpret the Story in the circumstances we find ourselves in today. Each generation must "implement" the Gospel for themselves, in their context, trying to be faithful to the Story. This view of authority does not seek to manipulate with power and control, or merely give information, but it is consistent with how Jesus used His authority during his time on Earth: telling stories.
That, in fact, is (I believe) one of the reasons why God has given us so much story, so much narrative in scripture. Story authority, as Jesus knew only too well, is the authority that really works. Throw a rule book at people’s heads, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world; you invite them to share a world-view, or better still, a “God-view”. That, actually, is what the parables are all about. They offer, as all genuine Christian story-telling does, a world-view which, as someone comes into it and finds how compelling it is, quietly shatters the world-view that they were in already. Stories determine how people see themselves and how they see the world. Stories determine how they experience God and the world and themselves and others. Great revolutionary movements have told stories about the past and present and future. They have invited people to see themselves in that light, and people’s lives have been changed. If that happens at merely a human level, how much more when it is God himself, the creator, breathing through his word.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Rumblings
I've been having some rumblings in my mind about some of the things that I've been learning over the past few years and how they integrate within God's Story. In a response to an excellent discussion on Matt's blog about the definition and sharing of the Gospel I started to process some of this. I just want to ask some questions and start some dialogue about this stuff and lets see what we come up with...
Should my faith, redemption, fellowship with God etc. have implications outside of myself? If so, what?
Does the Gospel have implications outside of the individual? In other words, is it all about "me and God" or does God have a wider purpose for the Gospel?
Does the Bible speak of a purpose for the Gospel other than my individual redemption and restoration of fellowship with Him?
What are the pros and cons of an "individualistic Gospel" and one that takes the world into view?
I look forward to hearing what you think....
I've been having some rumblings in my mind about some of the things that I've been learning over the past few years and how they integrate within God's Story. In a response to an excellent discussion on Matt's blog about the definition and sharing of the Gospel I started to process some of this. I just want to ask some questions and start some dialogue about this stuff and lets see what we come up with...
Should my faith, redemption, fellowship with God etc. have implications outside of myself? If so, what?
Does the Gospel have implications outside of the individual? In other words, is it all about "me and God" or does God have a wider purpose for the Gospel?
Does the Bible speak of a purpose for the Gospel other than my individual redemption and restoration of fellowship with Him?
What are the pros and cons of an "individualistic Gospel" and one that takes the world into view?
I look forward to hearing what you think....
Monday, May 02, 2005
I've been reading some N.T. Wright lately and have had my eyes open to lack of my understanding of the Hebrew/Israelite culture that colors my understanding of the Jesus narratives. Knowing the political, social and economic situations of the various groups that where in play definately gives a different meaning to some of the passages. Much more "political" in nature, considering all that was going on in Israel at the time.
For instance being a disciple (talmid) meant something quite different than what our western version means:
A talmid did not follow a rabbi as a student. They desired to gain the rabbi's knowledge, but for a greater goal-they wanted to become like the rabbi himself.
A talmid followed the rabbi everywhere-every day, and every hour of the day-often without knowing or asking where the rabbi was going. The talmid rarely left his rabbi's side for fear that he would miss a teachable moment. He watched the rabbi's every move, noting how he acted and thought about a variety of situations.
Talmidim trusted their rabbi completely. They were eager to hear the rabbi's teachings and they worked passionately to incorporate the rabbi's actions and words into their lives. The disciple's deepest desire was to follow his rabbi so closely that he would start to think and act like the rabbi himself.
Here is an interesting site: Follow The Rabbi
For instance being a disciple (talmid) meant something quite different than what our western version means:
A talmid did not follow a rabbi as a student. They desired to gain the rabbi's knowledge, but for a greater goal-they wanted to become like the rabbi himself.
A talmid followed the rabbi everywhere-every day, and every hour of the day-often without knowing or asking where the rabbi was going. The talmid rarely left his rabbi's side for fear that he would miss a teachable moment. He watched the rabbi's every move, noting how he acted and thought about a variety of situations.
Talmidim trusted their rabbi completely. They were eager to hear the rabbi's teachings and they worked passionately to incorporate the rabbi's actions and words into their lives. The disciple's deepest desire was to follow his rabbi so closely that he would start to think and act like the rabbi himself.
Here is an interesting site: Follow The Rabbi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
