Preposterous Theological Statements: Episode 1

As many of you know, I am working my way toward a Ph.D. in Biblical studies. This involves, amongst other things, a ton of quality time in the library. A lot of the things I read are very good, but the process of winnowing can also be frustrating when the percentage of chaff of is very high. As a tribute to the theological chaff, I am starting a new series on the Speckled Mind called, "Preposterous Theological Statements." This will, I hope, help all of you to share the journey with me and participate in mocking and ridiculing Biblical scholars who have truly missed the point.

Our subject today is James M. Robinson, professor emeritus of religion at Claremont Graduate school in California. Robinson, a member of the Jesus seminar and prominent 'Q' theologian wrote the following preposterous theological statement:

"[Q is] the most important Christian document we have."

The preposterous nature of this statement is pretty evident. For those who don't know, Q is the proposed source material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark. Basically the math works like this: If Matthew = Luke and does not = Mark, that = Q.

The biggest absurdity of the statement is that WE DON'T HAVE Q. It is a hypothetical source reconstructed by Biblical scholars who could find nothing better to do with their time. IF it ever existed--and some scholars consider that a big IF--it is lost and gone forever (oh, my darling Clementine).

Second, to say that it would be more important for the Christian layperson and scholar alike if we could reconstruct it with any certainty (which we can't) is just plain silly. How does a document with bare statements aid us more than the narrative beauty of the existing gospels?

Third, a hypothetical source is clearly NOT a 'document.' To say it is would be like referring to Pegasus as a farm animal. Which gives me an idea...

Mr. James Robinson--in your honor I have to assert that, "Pegasus is the most important farm animal we have."

How do these people get degrees?

Surprised By Hope Part 7: Resurrection

Well, friends, I'm afraid I'm going to have to end this series. Not because there's nothing more to say. Rather, these posts are pretty labor intensive, and I'm not sure I'm going to have the time to continue them any longer. To those that have accompanied me on the journey--both those who commented and those who did not--I owe you my deepest thanks. I wish there were more time to deeply explore some of the issues that have arisen in the past few weeks. Perhaps there will be at some point.

Part 7 seemed to be the perfect one on which to end this series (for those of you who are into Jewish numerology at least...). Also, it seemed right to post on this particular topic on Resurrection Sunday. Today, Christians everywhere rejoice in the fact that the tomb is empty, and that we worship the risen and exalted messiah, Jesus.

In terms of apologetics for the truth of the resurrection I will give only a few brief comments--here I am drawing heavily upon Wright's work. My hunch is that few readers of this blog doubt the historicity of this event, but these things are still worth mentioning. First, those that would doubt the truth of the bodily resurrection of Christ must explain the historical (and sociological) curiosity of the early Christian movement. If Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, why would his disciples have continued to proclaim him as the messiah? A crucified Jewish would-be messiah in the first century was a FAILED messiah. This point cannot be made too strongly, and there are plenty of historical examples to support it. The followers of that would-be messiah had two options: a) disband and forget the hope of liberation that the 'messiah' seemed to offer, or b) elect a new messianic candidate from within who would continue the cause of liberation. Curiously, the first Christians did neither of these things, instead proclaiming that Jesus had BODILY risen from the dead. Wright and others argue vehemently that such a proclamation is historically inconceivable unless Jesus actually did rise.

A second and very convincing argument for the truth of the resurrection accounts in the gospels is that women were the first witnesses of the event. In Part 6, I mentioned briefly the second class status afforded women in Jewish society. They were not allowed to testify in court--their recounting of events would have been worthless for legal purposes. Such a situation begs the question: If the evangelists were trying to author a convincing fiction and pass it off as history, why in the world would they have written women as the leading actresses of their accounts? It would have convinced no one. The only explanation for the gospel accounts reading as they do is that they are historically accurate.

So, having established the facticity of the gospel accounts, what can we say about how the disciples understood the event itself? What did it mean within the larger schema of Jewish eschatology? Here the road is a bit bumpier, and I will again recommend reading Surprised By Hope for yourself if you want to get a clearer picture. For our purposes, an all-too-brief summary will have to suffice.

First, most Jews expected a resurrection to occur (save the Sadducees); everyone knew that Yahweh would one day resurrect all people for judgment in anticipation of/preparation for the new heavens and new earth. Let me be clear, all expectation in this regard had an end of the world referent. For Jesus' disciples to claim that their Lord had been raised from the dead in the middle of history would have been a novel invention indeed (were it not true). So what did it mean? For Paul, the answer is clear.

It meant that death had been defeated; it meant that Yahweh's new creation had already been inaugurated in the person of Jesus.

Jesus was, in this sense, the "truly human one." He was the lone example of what human life in God's perfect new creation would look like. He was the person in whom the future was caught up in the present. Notice that there is nothing that can be 'spiritualized' about Jesus' resurrection. It was not another way of referring to life after death in another place. Nor was it an interesting description of an intense private spirituality. Rather it was the prototype for life after life after death on earth (this is Wright's way of putting the matter, and I think it's spectacular).

So what should we make of the fact that God's new creation has been set loose in the person of Jesus Christ? I suggest the most appropriate response is to find out how we can get in on the action. After all, if there are two types of creation going on all around us--one that is subject to death and decay and another that bears the beauty of the risen Christ--it would seem logical to shoot for the latter. It is, therefore, our privilege and pleasure to be "in Christ" in this way--that we reflect the agenda of God's certain and conclusive future redemption for the entire cosmos in the present.

Or, as Paul puts it, "If anyone is in Christ [there is] a New Creation!! Everything old has passed away; behold! everything has become new."

*****

So what does all of this mean in terms of practical action? How does a belief in the present power of new creation affect the things that are said and done on an every day basis? I'd be lying if I said I had ready made answers to these questions. What I can do is offer some thoughts I've had about being a Christian in this generation--especially since reading this book. Much of this might not strike you as novel, but it is what it is....

I've thought long and hard about the ways in which being "in Christ" should make me different from any other person walking down the DC streets. What should set me apart? What would cause people to recognize the surprising and beautiful existence of new creation in the middle of history when it was on display in my life? What would cause people to be persuaded that a commitment to Christ is anything more than a personal spiritual add-on to the existing status quo?

First, I think my generation has stopped asking the question "is it right?" and replaced it with, "does it work?" It is the generation of the postmodern pragmatist, concerned more with the agenda of human advancement and advantage than the characteristics of new creation. Therefore, I need to remember that "Does it work" always serves the cause of the powerful (they define what 'works' and what doesn't) and to take up the cause of those who are casualties of that agenda. My operating paradigm for action must be rooted in "is it right?".

Second, I need to learn to be loving. I need to resist the tendency to redefine love in terms of what I consider to be possible--to remake love in my own image, if you will. I need to give up my self perceived need to be right as a matter of course, realizing that "the right" are not listed amongst the blessed in Jesus economy.

Like I said, nothing particularly new. These are just a couple of things I've been kicking around and trying to put into practice since reading this book. Feel free to add your own to the list of 'what new creation looks like in the 21st century.'

To all: Happy Resurrection Day. HE IS RISEN!

Surprised by Hope Part 6: Symbol as Story as Action

What about Jesus
Didn't he do it too?
Hang out with prostitutes
And have a drink or two.
Power of example
My mama said it and I heard
She says one ounce of action
Beats a ton of words.~~Martin Sexton

I have promised to describe in more detail the difference that seeing Jesus as a first century Jew has made in the way I read scripture. In this post, I will offer what I hope is a clear example of that. But first, a few words of introduction are in order.

Categorically speaking, the biggest shift I've experienced in this regard is a new awareness to the presence of (and importance of!) symbolism in the gospels. My theological heritage had taught me that symbols were 'bare'--they didn't actually do anything, and they didn't even say all that much except in a dry referential sort of way. My conversion on this issue has been a new birth into understanding symbol as story, and story as action. In short, speech is action; and, often times, actions say more than words ever could. I suggest that this was the operating paradigm with which we should approach the Biblical texts, and the gospels in particular.

Luke 10: 38-42 provides an excellent test case for examining synoptic symbolism:

38As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!" 41"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, 42but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."

This passage has been used in many sermons as a defense for the priority that women must give to prayer and scripture study. "Remember, ladies," so it is said, "time in the Word is just as important as doing the laundry or dishes." Such a reading of this passage, however, does not do justice to the subversiveness of Jesus actions or Luke's special theological emphases.

First, we must remember that Jesus lived (and Luke wrote) in a highly patriarchal culture. Women had their place, and men had theirs--and the clearly defined boundaries of those realms were not to be transgressed. Thus, a number of things about this story should seem curious to the reader. First, what would have given Mary the audacity to think she had a right to sit at Jesus feet? Such a position symbolically implied an inclusion amongst Jesus' disciples. Only Men were allowed to sit at the feet of a rabbi. Mary didn't just get distracted while she was setting the table for dinner. Her action was intentional, and it rocked the social world in which she lived--that's why Martha was so outraged. It wasn't because she needed an extra pair of hands in the kitchen.

The second--and bigger--question: why in the world would Jesus allow Mary to do such a thing? Mary, as a 'foolish woman' could perhaps be excused for considering herself more highly than she should have.

But not a rabbi of Jesus' stature.

By allowing Mary to sit at his feet as he taught, Jesus was giving tacit approval to her actions. In Martha's view, Jesus was brining shame upon himself by allowing the situation to continue. By her questioning, Martha is attempting to restore the all important social order of a first century Jewish household. She, essentially, was reminding Jesus of who he was.

In this light, Jesus response is all the more remarkable for its symbolism. He did not scold Mary when her embarrassing actions were brought to light by Martha--who, by the way, was certainly just saying what the rest of the male disciples were thinking. Rather, Jesus affirmed both her desire and her right to be included amongst the disciples. Essentially, Jesus response explained to Martha that Mary had gotten it right by shaking up the social constraints of her culture; and--by extension--inviting Martha to live in the new reality into which her sister had already stepped. Jesus, essentially, was reminding Martha of who she was.

In my view the application of this passage is clear. Women have the same right to sit at the feet of the Great Rabbi as men. And, by extension, they have the same right to further the legacy of that Rabbi by teaching others. The fact that women are still consistently denied the right, duty and privilege of exercising their gifts to the fullest possible benefit of the church is troubling. It seems to me that those who would deny gifted women a preaching role (for instance) are simply echoing the voice of Martha--"Tell these women to remember their place!" And, I'm quite confident Jesus' gentle rebuke would be similar--"You are concerned about many things (i.e., maintenance of social tradition)...but they have chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from them."

Many, in their attempts to minimize the utter difference of this kind of reading, refer to this as a "deeper meaning." (I've described this problem in more detail elsewhere.) By this, they mean that it is nice for those who want to study the passage in a more extensive way, but that the normal reading also 'works just fine.' The reason that I chose the passage from Luke 10 is that it illustrates the folly of such dualism. What I've described above can't possibly be a 'deeper meaning' because it completely deconstructs the more common reading of the text. One reading says, "Don't forget to be pious while you accept the social norms handed to you;" the other says, "The social norms you've been handed--where women are viewed as second class citizenry--are not a part of the kingdom of God that is even now breaking in upon this world."

I think this is a good place to stop for the time being. But first, a word to those that disagree with the larger theological point I've made in this entry. I hope you see a pastoral heart in what otherwise might seem like a polemical bludgeon club. Certainly you could call up other scripture passages that may seem to oppose the point I've made here, and I'm confident it would make for an interesting discussion. What I'm primarily interested in, however, is: How would you render this passage differently in either meaning or application? And, if your reading is different, is it grounded in the concrete history of first century Judaism? I believe that the most fruitful discussions are to be had on those terms, and I sincerely thank you for indulging me if you feel differently.

Surprised by Hope Part 5: The Importance of Being Jewish

The noise is coming out, and if it's not out now
Then tomorrow, tomorrow
They took your life apart and called you failure's art
They were wrong though, they won't know
'Til tomorrow~~Elliott Smith

I hope that Part 4 persuaded many of my readers (or reconfirmed already held beliefs) about the importance of studying the historical Jesus in correlation with the theological Jesus. My greatest hope in writing--the eschatology of this blog series, if you will--is that the artificial border between those two approaches to Jesus would lie down together in peace. Theology has nothing to fear from examining history, and history has nothing to fear in doing theology.

I hope this post will draw together some of the threads of earlier posts in its discussion of Jesus' Jewishness. I have already shown the problems with an ahistorical rendering of Jesus' Kingdom preaching in Part 3. Without a firm historical cornerstone, the theological building crumbles into a heap of Platonic metaphysical speculation about the afterlife. It could be argued, though, that this misunderstanding of "Kingdom" is an isolated example and that the majority of traditional theological reflection would be left unscathed by a closer study of history. I have often heard this objection raised, and I would like to answer it somewhat indirectly.
Of all the things that my Evangelical background did well (yes, there were many things!), making sense of the pre-passion gospel accounts was not amongst them. In short, I was quite clear on why Jesus died ("to forgive sins"), but rather fuzzy on why he lived (other than "to be sinless"). Further, it went as an unspoken assumption that Jesus death could have "worked" regardless of when he lived (period of history) or his ethnic heritage. Thus, if he had been Chinese, lived in the 200's B.C.E, spun pithy aphorisms and died a sacrificial death, it would have been just as well for those who seek "salvation."

I have since come to see such a view of Jesus as shortsighted for a number of reasons. I should be clear at this point, however, that the soteriology of my youth is something I still hold very dear. I still believe deeply and passionately that Jesus died to save sinners. Yet, that description of his mission alone is rendered impotent without the larger story that must accompany it--a story that answers all of the important worldview questions: who are we, where are we, what is wrong and what is the solution, (See Wright's NTPG, 123c). And, though Christians have developed interesting answers to those questions in modern times, I would argue that Jesus' answers to those questions in his own time were very different. Further, we only get a true understanding of the importance of Jesus when we see how his answers to these questions differed from those of his first century contemporaries. I would also argue that if we are to be Biblically faithful, our own answers to those questions must grow organically out of Jesus'.

Who Are We? For a first century Jew, this one was a no-brainer: We are the people of the one true, creator God--the God who made everything. All of us who are Jews by birth belong to a privileged order of God's humanity--the elected. In his wisdom,God has given us the covenant, the law and the temple.

Where Are We? & What Is Wrong? For a first century Jew, these questions were impossible to answer in isolation from one another: Some of us are back in the land that we were promised, but that land no longer looks like the one that we were promised. For starters, we are a vassal state under the crushing imperial power of Rome. Second, because of Roman rule we are taxed beyond the confines of what we can bear. Third, even our house of worship is controlled by the Herods, whom most of us despise. So, to put it bluntly, home isn't right, the power structures aren't right and worship isn't right. To put it even more bluntly: The exile is still ongoing. For whatever reason, Yahweh still allows this state of affairs to continue in relative silence.

What Is The Solution? It is important to note that there were a number of answers to this question, all of which will necessarily be oversimplified in what follows:

• As a Zealot, I believe that Yahweh has not delivered us from oppression because we have not given him ample opportunity to display his power in battle. Therefore, it is our duty and privilege to provoke the Romans into an armed conflict, trusting that Yahweh will victoriously act on our behalf when we do. My favorite part of scripture is Daniel 7.
• As a Pharisee, I believe that Yahweh has not delivered us from Roman oppression because the sin of the land is so great. The lack of personal commitments to holiness amongst the prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. is to blame for the condition we’re in. Only when Yahweh sees a systemic commitment to piety will he act decisively on our behalf and deliver us from Roman oppression. My favorite part of Scripture is the book of Leviticus.
• As a Sadducee, I believe that we need to accept the present Roman oppression as a consequence of our past sins. Therefore, the wisest course of action is to accept Yahweh's judgment by making the best of the situation--after all, the more that Rome prospers, the more we will prosper along with it. My favorite part of Scripture is Jeremiah 29.
  
• As an Essene, I believe that everything wrong with the so-called, ‘people of God’ is so bad as to be irreparable. In fact, not all those who call themselves, “Israel” really are the Israel that God has in mind. Therefore, the best we can hope for is to start again--away from all the evil in Jerusalem--by forming a remnant community along the Dead Sea in Qumran. Only in separation and isolation can holiness be achieved. My favorite part of Scripture is Isaiah 10.
  

However crude and reductionist, I believe this to be a historically accurate sketch of the Jewish worldview matrix into which Jesus stepped. His life, then, is best understood by examining the ways in which he affirmed, modified or opposed the ready made answers to the worldview questions posited by the different Judaisms of his day.

What follows is my understanding of how Jesus would have answered the same four worldview questions if they were posed to him:

Who Are We? "We" is a bit of a misnomer, because not everyone who is Jewish by ethnicity is amongst God's elect. As Isaiah prophesied, God has reserved a remnant for himself, and I have come to gather that remnant around me and to define it in relation to myself. The standards by which Israel has typically judged herself a part of the covenant community--Circumcision, Temple and Torah--are no longer reliable as efficacious symbols of corporate identity. God's Israel will be defined as those who love me by keeping my commands.

Where Are We? & What Is Wrong? We are at THE climactic moment in all of history. We are still in exile, and that means each person must make a choice. The first option is for those who insist upon clinging to their own nationalistic aspirations. The result of that choice will be judgment and destruction--it is as foolish a choice as waiting on the shore of the Red Sea as Pharaoh's army approaches. The second choice is to join the remnant by passing through the water--John has already symbolically initiated this by his baptisms in the desert. The result of that choice will be the experience of a new exodus--a new liberation from oppression. Certainly, though, most of ethnic Israel will not accept Yahweh's chosen mode of deliverance--they never do; and this is a symptom of the larger problem. Israel has mistaken her election as a matter of privilege when it was always intended as a matter of responsibility.

What Is The Solution? I am the solution. I am everything that Yahweh wanted Israel to be in the first place. I am the elect one--true Israel--because I have perfectly kept the covenant with Yahweh. I am the 'blessing to the nations of the earth' for through me, Yahweh will finally see his hope for the inclusion of the Gentiles realized. I am the "prophet like Moses" because I have come to lead a new exodus from the present oppression. I am the true temple because true worship of Yahweh happens in and through me.

*****

I suggest that this sketch of Jesus' worldview makes excellent sense of the life he lived--why he taught as he did, why he acted as he did and why he ultimately died as he did. A Jesus who believed and acted in this manner is believably follow-able because he provided a rare and convincing hope to his contemporaries. Further, this Jesus is believably crucifiable from both a Roman and a Jewish perspective. Worldviews do not shift easily, and Jesus' subversion of them would logically be met with fierce resistance from all the world's powers.

Some may object at this point that I still have not displayed any kind of interpretive cash-out for all the historical insight I've provided.

And those people are correct.

Unfortunately, due to the length of this post, those people will have to wait for the next edition. In Part 6 (which, God willing will be far shorter than Part 5) I will give some concrete examples of where the first century Jewish matrix I've sketched has made a difference in my readings of the texts. I felt that it would have been disingenuous to give those examples without first providing a clear foundation.

For those that made it clear to the bottom of this post, I thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to continuing our discussion.

Surprised by Hope Part 4: Jesus and His-Story

"It is amazing that so many New Testament scholars write books about Jesus in which they discover that he agrees with their own version of Christianity…I am a liberal, modern, secularized Protestant, brought up in a church dominated by low Christology and the social gospel. I am proud of the things that that religious tradition stands for. I am not bold enough, however, to suppose that Jesus came to establish it, or that he died for the sake of its principles."~~E.P. Sanders

The desire to remake Jesus in our own image is irresistible. As Sanders so wryly notes, Biblical scholars are not immune from this disease--in fact, they are often the primary carriers. And, though artists are not always trying to depict reality as it actually is, the plethora of different renderings of Jesus' physical likeness serves as evidence that scholars are not alone in this tendency. Pastor and layperson alike also fall into the trap of imagining Jesus as a bit too much like themselves.

It's pervasive, and it is a problem--but where is the escape hatch?

It should be stated at the outset that I consider myself to be a carrier of this disease. I would never claim to have an objective standpoint from which I can critique others' views while leaving mine unsullied as 'the' correct view (nor would Wright). I do, however, want to see discussions about Jesus based on something other than religious impressionism.

And that 'something' is history.

Wright states the point with appropriate succinctness: "Christianity appeals to history; to history it must go." Despite the bumps in the road that the Quests for the Historical Jesus have incurred--one can hardly hear the words "Jesus" and "Seminar" in the same sentence anymore without a shiver--the followers of Jesus have nothing to fear in examining the historical context in which he lived. Let me reiterate--we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by questing for the historical Jesus, and letting his history determine our reading of scripture.

The apostle Paul would agree wholeheartedly with that proposal. In his words, "When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children." I love this verse because it holds together the story of God's salvation, sovereignty and timing (i.e., history) as a package deal. You can't have one without the others. Thus, the only Jesus that we should care about is the first century Jewish carpenter from Galilee. Certainly Jesus' status as God incarnate plays a role, but I would argue that you only get the latter in view when you've given appropriate effort to examining the significance of the former.

So where do we begin?

Millions of pages have been written on the historical Jesus, and hundreds of thousands more have been written in critique of those who have undertaken the quest. And, while most won't find all of the insights of those pages particularly helpful, one fact is inescapable and necessary for scholar and layperson alike: Jesus was a Jew.

I suspect I don't need to prove that to any of those who frequent this blog, but I would like to suggest that the implications of that small fact have rarely been considered by most pewsitters who read scripture.

As this post has already gone on too long, I would like to leave it here--looking forward to Part 5 in which I will discuss some of the Jewish aspects of Jesus that are too often ignored, why they matter and the personal difference that recognizing them has made in my own life. Part 5, then, will serve as a segue back into the issues more closely related to Surprised by Hope. Thus, Part 6 will examine the Jewish concept of resurrection and its relation to Jewish messianic thought. This will (I hope) bring us to the more practical implications of Wright's book for the mission of the church--maybe even in time for Easter! Wouldn't that be nice? I'd like to again thank all of you who are participating in the discussion and wrestling with the messy and beautiful business of living in a post-resurrection world.

May the life of Christ dwell in you richly.

Surprised by Hope Part 3: A King and a Kingdom

There's no escape for you, except in someone else
Although you've already disappeared within yourself
The invisible man who's always changing clothes
It's all about taking the easy way out for you I suppose
~~Elliott Smith

Thanks to everyone that has taken the time to comment thus far. It's been illuminating to get feedback and glean from your insights. I will try to answer as many of the questions as I can in turn.

JB noted that he wanted to hear more about a few of the points I made in my first post. Today I'd like to deal with some of the misconceptions that circle around the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven;" and, in doing so, I hope to answer some of the crucial points Cor brought up about "average Joe pewsitter." It should be noted that much of what will follow may be review for some of my readers, but I trust that you will all bear with me for the sake of those who may be new to this discussion.

The phrase "Kingdom of heaven" is only used in Matthew. It is an unquestioned fact of Biblical studies that the phrase "Kingdom of God" found in Mark and Luke are equivalent in both meaning and referent to Matthew's phrase. (The reason for Matthew's change from the text of Mark, which he likely used as a source, is an interesting topic but takes us too far afield at this point). And while most 'pewsitters' wouldn't question that fact, many read both phrases as referring to the afterlife because of the prevalent false understanding of the meaning of 'heaven' I discussed in Part 2. The practical result of this misreading is that all of Jesus' teaching that begins with the phrase, "The kingdom of God/heaven is like..." is read as a description of a posthumous spiritual reality.

Is such a reading warranted? If such a reading is not warranted, what is the right reading of such texts and how do we know? Does it really matter?

Having been shaped by Wright's writing over the past few years, I have come to the firm conclusion that such a reading is not warranted for a number of reasons (here I'm drawing on Wright's The New Testament and the People of God). First and foremost, the intracanonical evidence does not support such a reading. Whenever the idea is referenced in the Old Testament literature--particularly in the Psalms and in Isaiah, it always describes the idea of God once again becoming king of Israel (See in particular Psalms 145, 93, 96, 97 and Isaiah 33 and 52).

Second, no one within the world of first century Judaism would have understood the phrase that way. First century Jews were not looking for the end of the space time universe. Rather, they were anticipating God's deliverance from their present oppression. The phrase (or its lexical cousin "No King but God") were used in other first century writings, and it never referred to the end of the world--but rather, the end of the present state of affairs in which the Jews were ruled over by Gentile pagans. Wright comments on this in NTPG, p. 302:

"The kingdom of God" historically and theologically considered is a slogan whose basic meaning is the hope that Israel's God is going to rule Israel (and the whole world), and that Caesar, or Herod, or anyone else of their ilk, is not.

Interestingly enough, the enacting of this kingdom was not always associated with a messianic figure--an interesting discussion in its own right. Hopefully we can discuss that in a future post.

So, having established that neither history nor theology support a futuristic reading of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven/God," what can we say are the affects of this popular misreading? First, such a reading neuters the radical call Jesus was making on his countrymen and contemporaries. Jesus favorite topic of teaching was the "Kingdom of God," and if he was just speaking about a new world order that will take place in the distant future, there is little reason anyone in his time would have been very upset about it. Or, to use Wright's terminology from Jesus and the Victory of God, such a Jesus would not have been "crucifiable." If the Jesus we read in the gospels wasn't a Jesus who radically challenged the power structures of his own time, we're reading a different gospel. And, by extension (and this is where it really hits the average 'pewsitter') if Jesus didn't radically challenge the power structures and priorities of his own time by inaugurating the rule and reign of God through his teaching of the kingdom, he has little hope of doing so in our own time.

Second, such a reading creates the impression that God did something powerful in and through Jesus 2000 years ago, but He hasn't shown any particular interest in humanity since--and he won't again until the end of time. A Jesus whose kingdom preaching refers only to end of time realities is a Jesus who has colluded with deists--he is an absentee landlord that can only help his followers endure the present evil instead of seeking to transform it. He is a Jesus who, with regard to the two important questions about salvation--"From What?" and "To What?"--can only answer the former with any kind convincing authority. He is a Jesus who reduces the work of the Holy Spirit to an afterthought. Bluntly, he is not a Jesus that can, in any sense, claim the title of "Lord" over this present world.

Let me be clear--Jesus will finally and ultimately institute the rule and reign of God in the new heavens and new earth. But to pretend that the bulk of Jesus' teaching was about this subject stretches the bounds of historical and theological plausibility beyond the breaking point. Our world needs a group of people, empowered by the Spirit, to join the mission of God by living every day in the realities that were made possible by Jesus' kingdom inauguration; it needs Christians to be people of the resurrection. It is to that vocation that scholar and pewsitter alike are called.

Surprised by Hope Part 2: Heaven Is A Place On Earth?

Everybody knows
Everybody knows
Everybody knows
You only live a day
But it's brilliant anyway ~ Elliott Smith

No one debates the inescapable nature of death. As certain as taxes, each day we draw one day closer to our ultimate demise. So what follows that demise?

Let's just say the aforementioned universal consensus ends at that point.

Answers to the question range widely, but one very popular answer centers around the idea of "heaven." Most Christians would give this response concerning their own destiny, but Wright notes that the conceptions of heaven amongst Christians often bares little resemblance to that of the Biblical authors. What follows are some of the important places of departure between the prevailing Christian view of heaven and the Biblical accounts:

1. The most important thing about heaven is its essence, not it's geography. In the Jewish conception, heaven was that place where God's will for God's creation happened perfectly. Thus, the state of affairs of that place--its Lordship, if you will--was the primary thing of interest to the Biblical authors when they referred to heaven .

2. It follows from this that when the reign of God is enacted on earth, heaven and earth can and do overlap. The places of that overlap can be seen throughout the scriptures, most notably in the holy of holies in the Jewish temple. Not to mention, Jesus taught his followers to pray for that overlap--"...Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

3. The eternal dwelling place of the faithful is not heaven. Rather, a post-resurrection new heavens and new earth (a la Isaiah 65 - 66; Revelation 21 - 22) are God's plan for the future. Probably my favorite quote from the book stems from this truth: "Heaven is nice, but it's not the end of the world."

4. The idea of humans leaving earth at the end of time is a misnomer with no Biblical evidence to support it. The new Jerusalem, the heavenly city, comes down to earth. Thus,the overlap of heaven and earth will be ultimately be perfected.

So what's the problem? Are these misconceptions really that big of a deal? I would argue that, when combined with the spirit/matter dualism (Gnosticism) described in my last post, the results can be disastrous, not least in the musical worship of our churches.

As a worship leader, I have noticed how often this dualistic Gnosticism plagues the writing of our hymns and choruses. Here are some of the more egregious examples:

When the shadows of this life have grown, I'll fly away
Like a bird from these prison walls, I’ll fly, I'll fly away
I'll fly away, oh glory, I'll fly away (in the morning)
When I die, hallelujah by and by, I'll fly away (From I'll Fly Away)

God is bigger than the air I breathe
The world we'll leave
God will save the day and all will say
My glorious! (From My Glorious)

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow
The sun forbear to shine
But God, Who called me here below
Will be forever mine (From Christ Tomlin's Amazing Grace)

Certainly, the effects have been felt in the preaching realm just as much as that of music. But I figured this would be a good start to the discussion. Do you agree that there is a heaven confusion? If so, where have you seen it happen?

Surprised by Hope Part 1: A Gnostic in Orthodox Clothing?

N.T. Wright’s new book on heaven, resurrection and the basis for Christian hope was borne out of his conviction that there are two broad misunderstandings currently at work with regard to popular Christian eschatology. In this post, I will treat the first which I have called "A Gnostic in Orthodox Clothing."

This view is (typically) that of the conservative Biblicist who, though he/she believes firmly in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, misunderstands greatly the significance and implications of that event. For this group of people, Jesus’ rise from the grave amounts to little more than a decisive demonstration of God’s power--a confirmation of the atoning efficaciousness of Good Friday. Further, the logic of this group usually follows the pattern that, "Jesus resurrection proves that there is a heaven, and the reward of every Christian soul will be to (someday) follow Jesus to that place after death."

In the interest of evenhandedness, I'll point out a few of the strengths of this position:

• Belief in the power of God to raise Jesus from the dead (over-against those who dismiss such an accomplishment on 'scientific' grounds)
• A commitment to reading the gospel accounts as if they (more or less) accurately record actual historical events
• Belief in God's commitment to the plight of human beings and His atoning action

There may be others, but these are the major ones that I see. Now, let's look at some of the weaknesses of this position:

• An insufficient understanding of Jesus' Jewishness and the significance thereof
• A shallow understanding of the history of Israel with regard to the categorical importance of the title "Messiah" or "Christ"
• A complete misunderstanding of the function of 'resurrection' in the minds of the Biblical authors
• A misreading of many parables and Matthews phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" as having an "end times" referent
  
• In the more extreme versions of this position (see the absurdly popular "Left Behind" series as a categorical exemplar), a complete abdication of earthly Christan responsibility to any other task than "soul-saving"
• An intractable spirit/matter dualism--more the product of Platonic heritage than Biblical study--in which the important aspect of salvation is the soul's eventual escape to an otherworldly paradise (heaven).

There are other weakness of this position, friends. And I wish I could say Wright is off course in his assessment. The problem is that this kind of eschatology is my heritage--and it is certainly the heritage of many within my Non-denominational/Evangelical Free/Baptist tradition.

Out of the entire list, the last is the most disturbing of all because it unknowingly dismantles the basis for and the sustenance of Christian hope. The logic often goes something like this:

We are saved (to a non-physical heaven in the future)
by grace through faith (so none or our deeds actually matter in an eternal sense)
and nothing can snatch us from the Father's hand. (so endure this difficult physical life and look forward to the spiritual life of the future)
And, someday, when we get to heaven (the really important thing about living life in the first place)
we'll just praise God all day long (because we're unclear about what life hereafter would entail other than that).

Granted, there are variations within this stream of thought; but I'm confident that the above description is not a straw man. In the coming days I will treat each of the issues this position raises in greater detail.

It should be said at this point that my own interaction with Wright's book is one of (nearly) unanimous agreement. For those who have discussed these issues with me in the past, that will come as little surprise for two reasons. First you've heard me squawk endlessly about the need for a shift in Christian eschatological view and praxis. Wright simply stated the issues in a more eloquent, organized and succinct manner than I could have. Second, Wright is as good a Biblical scholar as there is in the field--his depth of wisdom and insight is the product of both lifelong academic study and lifelong pastoral responsibility. His commitment to both is the reason I've come to trust his point of view to such a large extent.

I look forward to interaction with any and everyone on these issues. As Christians, I firmly believe we can't make sense of the present until we know where it's going.

Surprised by Hope: An Introduction

Hello, Friends.

To my memory, I have never made an explicit book recommendation on this blog--117 entries, according to blogger, and not once have I suggested some light reading for those of you who love/tolerate the (far too infrequent) posts in this little corner of cyberspace.

All of that is changing today.

N.T. Wright's new book, Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection and the Mission of the Church, should be required reading for all those who submit to the Lordship of Jesus--and all of those who have dismissed Christianity because of the apparent disconnect between the teachings of its leader and the actions of his followers.

For those who may be turned off by heady works of academic theology, fear not. This book is written at a popular level so that academic and parishioner alike can rejoice together in the wisdom it contains. No elitism here.

I will be discussing this book in some detail in the coming days on this blog, and I would love to have others join in the conversation. Note--you are welcome and encouraged to discuss regardless of whether or not you've read the book. But I am confident you will all benefit deeply from reading.

I'll beg if I have to, but hopefully it won't come to that.

Holiness of God...

I'm working on my Statement of Faith right now (so that I can graduate from Bethel), and a thought occurred to me. I would love to get feedback from others who like to wax theological.

Are the attributes 'holy' and 'unchangeable' really just two ways of saying the same thing when used in reference to God?

After all, God ordered the universe and set it up according to the laws and principles which he deemed right/just/good. Thus, God's adherence to the maintenance of everything in accordance with rightness/justness/goodness which we often call 'holiness' is nothing more than consistent adherence to the system He created.

Basically, then, God's 'holiness' boils down to nothing more than this: God always plays the game by the rules.

It's just a musing...thought I'd cast it out there and see what ya'll think.

In Which My Old Man Calls Me Out...

I got an email from my dad this morning:

Tim-
So, the Colorado church shootings deal: Was one of the big questions for you- Why was there an armed guard at the church...what does the church need an armed guard that considers killing as OK- and where are you in this non-violent discussion?
DAD

Some of you may recall the non-violence discussion my dad was referencing from a blog I posted last month. It's a good question, and I definitely appreciate that my dad is trying to keep me honest to the real world as I work through the issue of the Christian's duty to be nonviolent in a violent world. So, a few thoughts on this issue.

First, it should be said that this was a terrible situation for all involved. We lament the passing of all the deceased, including the antagonist in this situation.

Second, I would love to hear some more background (as my dad alluded to in his email)--what led to the decision to have a guard on the church's campus? What led to having an ARMED guard on the church's campus? Etc., etc., etc. I want to hear a full explanation of the church's rationale for feeling that they needed that kind of protection. Then, I would be interested to find out if these issues arose as a product of managing a church as large as New Life. After all, I've never heard of a church of 200 - 500 people having an armed guard. My suspicion is that the factors leading to the church having an armed guard were not directly related to the gospel of Christ or the Kingdom of God but had a lot to do with managing the realities of a church of 10,000 people. It's just a hunch.

Third, in terms of a discussion about nonviolence as a Christian norm, we must not allow this issue to be framed as a 'lesser of two evils' quandary. Our only options here should not have been 1) Shoot the gunman so that he doesn't kill any more church members; or 2) Refrain from a violent response and allow the gunman to kill more church members. Such binary reductionist thinking does not take into consideration any of the questions listed above. Such thinking is also fatalistic in the extreme because it does not consider what could have been done to prevent such a situation in the first place. It's a bit like three men getting lost in the wilderness because they didn't bring a map for their journey, burning all of their food to stay warm and then having the audacity to assume that their only options are 1) to starve; or 2) to draw straws to see which of them will be killed and eaten. The decisions made further upstream must occupy the thrust of our attention with regard to the ethics of the situation.

So, with all of these things in mind, I think it's wise to turn to scripture. Two passages came to mind immediately. First, Luke 19: 41 - 44:

41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

I could spend ten pages on the exegesis of these verses, but I think only a few things bear specific mention. First, Jesus is clearly referring to the impending destruction of both the temple and Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. He wept because he knew that the Zealots would incite violence against the Romans, trusting that God would protect them and His holy city. However, their confidence was sorely misplaced, as both Jesus' prophecy and history clearly show. Second, Jesus weeps not because of the judgment about to fall on Jerusalem, but because she had ample opportunity to embrace 'the things that make for peace' but instead chose her own way and trusted God to bless that way instead of the way that truly brought His kingdom on earth.

The application is obvious--there were very likely things that could have led to peace in the situation at New Life Church, but they instead chose the false either/or of 1) helplessness against an armed assailant or 2) violence as a constant, ever-ready option to be used. I think Jesus wept over the meeting in which New Life church leadership discussed this absurd duo of violence-laden choices.

The second passage that came to mind was Matthew 26: 47 - 52:

47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him.

50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." [italics mine]

Again, much to be said. First, we must not deny the particularity of this passage. Obviously Jesus was speaking a specific message to a specific person and was not giving some sort of timeless truth in verse 52. Also, although all four gospels record this account, only Matthew preserved the saying in this verse. That being said, I think Jesus was speaking (in some regard) about the cyclical nature of violence. As both past history and current events illustrate, violence tends to beget violence...which, in turn, begets further violence. This is why 'just war' theory (or a 'just violence' theory) never quite rings true for me--it is not on a trajectory toward the good future God has in mind in which (Isaiah 2: 4),

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Even if the disturbed young man from Colorado took aim at New Life members because he loathed their genuine love and faithful adherence to the gospel (which I doubt), I still don't think the armed guard's violent response was the right answer. For, then the church's duty should have been to, with the New Testament apostles, consider suffering for the name of Christ to be an honor and a delight.

Of course, I'm not under the illusion that such a course of action is easy. Nor do I recall our Lord claiming it would be. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yet, the difficult, imaginative, humbling, frustrating and wrath-absorbing way of non-violence is the way of Jesus to which each of us has been called. The path that leads to violence is wide and easy. May we all seek the more narrow way.

Christmas Happenings

Hi, friends.

Christmas in DC is off to a very good start. Last night, Jess surprised me by getting tickets to Handel's Messiah at the National Cathedral. The sound was absolutely amazing--transcendent, one might even say. A couple of etiquette issues bear mention though:

First, you cannot possibly whisper quietly enough to be unobtrusive in a venue like this. So...SHUT UP! If you want to talk, go to a bar.

Second, if a concert venue has beautiful natural reverb, DO NOT start clapping until the final chord has completely ceased.

In other Christmas news, Jess and I got our first real Christmas tree. It smells wonderful. It was surprisingly easy to set up and decorate--we got it level in about two minutes. In fact, the only awkward part of the process was loading the tree on top of my Honda and driving it back to the apartment. For those of you keeping score at home, the number of odd things I've hauled in/on my Honda are: a Christmas tree and an Ikea recliner. The latter was a spectacular bit of spacial engineering on my part, if I do say so myself.

And I do.

Oh, one more bit of Christmas related material--I bought my first eggnog of the season. I bought the 'Light 'Nog' version, so as not to die an early death. I hope that, in heaven, eggnog will be fat free. Until then, I will have to settle for the lite stuff as a concession--part of the 'not yet' of the eggnong eschatological tension.

War and Peace

I have to work at 6:30 am most weak days. I'm not complaining. I actually really like my new job. Working at 6:30 means I arrive at the Metro Station at about 6:00. Part of the ritual is that I get my free Washington Post Express paper right outside of the Van Ness Metro and read it on the way to Union Station.

This morning, something in the paper hit me like a sledge hammer. The headline read:

Report: War Costs Total $1.6 Trillion

That is an astonishing figure. The article put it in perspective--that's about $21,000 for every family of four in the US.

The Iraq war's unpopularity is not new--many people probably saw that figure today and weren't a bit surprised. I guess the whole issue of war has become a bit more pertinent for me lately. I'm taking a Christian Ethics class in which we've been considering the viability of a 'just war' philosophy under the lordship of Jesus. One of our texts for the class, Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament, argues that there is no such thing as a 'just' act of violence for those who are part of Jesus' new creation. Stanly Hauerwas argues similarly in his text The Peaceable Kingdom.

I have to say I'm becoming convinced. Both texts make a strong case that an ethic of nonviolence is a mandatory part of the Christian life. Jesus way, as both Hauerwas and Hays suggest is that of 'turning the other cheek and going the second mile.'

Hays mentioned that he often gets asked by his students, "What if none of the Christians in America had stood up to fight against Hitler?" It's easily the most frequent question that advocates of nonviolence get asked. After all, is it really 'Christian' to stand idly by in the face of obvious injustice when the only route to peace is some kind of armed conflict? In response to the question Hays, like a good rabbi, answers the question with a question of his own:

"What if none of the Christians in Germany had agreed to fight for Hitler?"

Now, that may seem like the easy way out, but I don't think it is. In fact, I think Hays is deconstructing the false either-or the original question presupposes: Violent Resistance or Doing Nothing. Bono (as cliche as it has become to invoke his name in a blog post) hit on a similar theme in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone:

"Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"

To me, that sounds more like the way of Jesus. And, I think I'll have an easier time in the future explaining to my kids why I'm a pacifist than explaining why our family has paid $21,000 for a senseless, ill-conceived war.

Pope My Ride?

Is it a sin to go 10 mph over the speed limit while driving on a freeway? How about 7? How about 2? Does it matter if you're passing someone?

Well, just in case you've ever wondered about this and other such driving related moral predicaments, fear not. The pope has spoken.

Below you will find the list of the Vatican's "Driver's Ten Commandments."

1. You shall not kill.

2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.

3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.

4. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.

6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.

7. Support the families of accident victims.

8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.

9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.

10. Feel responsible toward others.

So...what do we think? Necessary correction or unfettered legalism? And what exactly is commandment #2 supposed to mean?

Bits and Pieces

There are a few things I've been meaning to blog about, none of which deserve their own entry. So, here goes:

1. Jessica and I were walking through Barnes and Noble in Duluth this past weekend. As we were about to exit the store, I noticed a table of books marked, "Easter is Coming Soon!" As we approached, I noticed the following books: The Jesus Papers, The Davinci Code, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of Mary and Jesus by Marcus Borg. Because apparently the employees of Barnes and Noble feel there is no better way to celebrate a Savior who is alive and well than with a table full of books that deny the historicity of His resurrection.

2. As Jess and I were driving to said book selling establishment, we saw three buildings on the side of the road. The first was a Christian radio station and the third was a Planned Parenthood clinic. In between? A legal firm. It's good to see that irony is alive and well in Duluth.

3. Part (I think) four in our ongoing 'For those about to waste time, I solute you' series is this curious little Russian website. Click on the red square in the middle and move it to avoid both the moving blue squares and the static black border. I've been told that if you can do it for 18 seconds or more you are a genius. I can't best 8 seconds.

Poet or Heretic: You Decide

This Friday, there will be an event at Hope Community Church called 'Soulwell'. This once a month event aims to be a different worship experience than a typical Sunday morning. A lot of music and reflection time, no preaching, flexible schedule, soft ambiance, etc. The original vision of this ministry is that those who have a difficult time connecting to the format of a typical Sunday morning would (perhaps) feel more at home in this kind of setting.

This semester (yes, we still operate on a college student calendar due to our primary demographic) we are exploring 'Reclaiming Whole-Life Faith: tasting freedom from compartmentalized Christianity'. Hopefully the event lives up to the ambitiousness of its title.

Oh, and the irony of trying to eliminate compartmentalization AT AN EVENT is not lost on me.

Anyway, this Friday we will be exploring the idea of prayer. Without delving into it too much, we want to be honest about how difficult this spiritual discipline is for many people and perhaps chart a course forward.

We will be using the Lord's prayer as part of our liturgy for the event. But in exploring its meaning, we found that much of the intended story-world of Jesus' instructions about communication with the Father were lost in a sea of over-familiarity. So...I did a new translation. I'd be interested to get some feedback on it.

Our Father--the One who will ultimately bring justice and renew all of creation--
Set apart Your unique and holy name from amongst the myriad of worthless idols
Bring Your kingdom crashing into our earthly reality
Actualize Your dreams for Your creation in our midst just as they happen in Your heaven
Feed us from the bread of life that you graciously give to sustain both body and soul
Extend Your perfect grace to us, that we may know how to respond gracefully toward others
Be mindful of how much temptation we can bear and do not press us beyond it
For You are the world's true King, the only One who can wield power justly,
Deserving the recognition, adoration and worship of those who bear Your image
Until the end of time and thereafter.
Amen

On Justice, Mercy and Customer Service

Anyone who has worked in a customer service position understands: the customer is always right...unless they're wrong. Unfortunately, they are often wrong. And when they are, it takes every ounce of restraint I have not to use the business end of my size 12's.

January and February at the bookstore always have a way of bringing about vindictiveness in me. I mean, there are plenty of good reasons to be angry, right? I was unjustly accused. I was yelled at. I was called a liar. I was stolen from. The Christian kids at Bethel should know better. They should know better.

And then it happens. I do something reprehensible...and I should have known better. And at that point, it's unthinkable to me that the offended party wouldn't immediately forgive me. Because, apparently, I deserve it...

And there is my double standard, my two-facedness, my hypocrisy. My natural reaction is to lobby for swift, definitive justice when others have done wrong and yet to invoke mercy when the error is mine. Certainly this is the opposite of Christ-like character and love. After all, Christ did not tell us to take up our cross so that we could impale others at will. Rather, we carry the cross so that we can die to ourselves--to our self-perceived rights and entitlement--that we might always view conflict through the lens of grace and mercy. I have so far to go.

Hermeneutics Reflections: Part 1

...or 'Why I Began My Presentation With A Beer Commercial Yesterday'

Obviously the guys in this Coors Light spot were not in the room when the original press conference was taking place. But there they are--asking Dick Vermeil their questions and receiving answers just as if they had been there all along. Just as if they belonged there. Just as if the press conference was intended to answer their questions.

The problem?

Nothing if our aim is comic relief...which is, I'm assuming, what Coors was hoping for with this ad. But it's no laughing matter when a similar situation occurs in Biblical interpretation.

My contention is that this kind of phenomena happens all too often in our readings of the Bible. Each person comes to the text hoping to get something that will speak to them personally, as if that was the text's primary concern, giving no credence to the pertinent historical/cultural background. What does God have to say to me today??? Just open the Bible at random and point. Let's confess, friends. We've all done it.

But what if...

What if our questions are not the questions the text is trying to answer? What if our questions are of relatively little importance in light of the themes the text is trying to bring to light? What if the text was not written, as has been so often assumed, to us? What if, instead it was written for us.

But have we really been missing things? I mean important things in our readings of scripture? How is that even possible? I think the Coors ad answers these question well. On one level, it really seems like Dick Vermeil is answering a question about onion dip. Both he and the 'reporters' are using language about 'making something' and showing some sort of uncertainty about the whole situation. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about American football may be satisfied at this point. But how about those who have played and/or watched football frequently? I bet those people can venture a guess what the original question was about. It probably had something to do with making or not making a touchdown or field goal...and nothing to do with onion dip.

These are some of the questions I've been working through lately. I think they're very important and, despite the objections I expect this post to illicit, I don't think the implied answers make Biblical study into an elitist exercise. But it does mean the task of interpretation needs to be undertaken more seriously and with more care. I fear that if we do not begin to ask some of these hard questions about the way(s) we read the Bible we run the risk of asking questions of God's word that have little more relevance than 'Doesn't this guy's hat look awesome backwards?'

Lord have mercy on me--the chief of sinners.

To Do List: 1. Pray More

There was a night of prayer at Hope last night, and about 25 people attended to pray for the coming year--for Hope, Hiawatha and our missionaries here and abroad.

Now, I've never been good at prayer. In its simplicity, it still remains one of the most mysterious aspects of the Christian faith to me. I know the pat answers--we pray to further our relationship with the Father. Simple communication with the Creator.

I get that.

How/if our prayers move God to action, however, is a topic for which I have no pat answers. The interplay of sovereign foreknowledge and divinely motivated intervention is something that I don't pretend to understand. One thing I know for sure, though, is the importance of praying for Hiawatha Church as they begin doing ministry in South Minneapolis.

As I sit in the Riverview Cafe this morning, I can't help but be nervous/excited/awed by the task facing the leadership of Hiawatha church. Even now, two women are having a discussion behind me about the benefits of universalism and that it is nearly identical to Christianity. One of them has a book entitled Circle Round: Raising Children in Goddess Traditions laying open on the table. A man across the room is reading a bit of Marx with his morning coffee. Hiawatha Church--welcome to your Athens.

Please join me in continual prayer for Hiawatha Church as they proclaim the love and reconciliation of Jesus Christ to a community that is 'very religious in every way'.

For the Love of the City

Lately I've been listening through the audio archives from the Reform and Resurgence conference that took place at Mars Hill Church in Seattle this Spring. It's a pretty cool thing that I didn't have to fly to the West Coast or pay a single shiny dime to get all the goods from this conference; though after listening, it would have been worth a number of shiny dimes to attend...even if they were MY shiny dimes.

The average looking white guy directly above this sentence is Dr. Timothy Keller. Rather than recite his bio, I'll just directe you to the Wikipedia article. The short version is that Dr. Keller is one of the country's biggest advocates for Urban Christianity. The following quote is taken from this audio program, which I highly recommend for your edification.

"Christians should be living in cities in far greater numbers than they are now because they want to...not out of guilt. There's nothing in the Bible that says you have to live in cities. But there's everything in the Bible that says you ought to want to."

This is just one of a hundred quotable moments in the program. Did I mention that I highly recommend listening to it? I can hardly think of a better way to spend the next hour and twenty-two minutes...of course, my imagination has never been that impressive.

In another thought provoking part of the presentation Dr. Keller talked about Churches becoming dynamic counter-cultures in society. In his words, as Christians we are called to be "radically the same and radically different" with regard to the people who live in our cities. The key is to choose carefully--and on a Biblical basis--which aspects of culture can be adopted, which aspects can be adapted, and which aspects should be ultimately rejected. Said differently, none of H. Richard Neibuhr's categories is sufficient in and of itself.

So that got me thinking.

Where do we take our stand? What are the core issues of Christian belief on which we must stand firm against howling cultural winds? What are the issues that have been forced into the core of Christian belief that should not be there? How does this all affect the way we should live within culture?

I'd love to hear feedback on this. I'll try to post some of mine as well.