Part of the reading for the Contemporary Theological Trends class I'm facilitating in Indy tonight is the first two chapters of the late Robert Webber's The Younger Evangelicals. In the first chapter, he summarizes the history of evangelicalism in the twentieth century. I find his account more balanced than Mark Noll's, and I thought I would summarize it. He does draw significantly on Marsden.
1910-1925
He sees the origins of the fundamentalist movement in this period, with the rise of evolution and higher biblical criticism as primary causes of growing reaction among many Christian groups. I do have a question about some of his timing, for most of the Wesleyan revivalist groups and colleges had already formed by this time.
He sees the Scopes Trial of 1925 as of primary significance in the formation of fundamentalism as a coherent force.
1925-1945
This is the hey day of fundamentalism, which he characterizes as "anti-intellectual," "anti-ecumenial," and "anti-social action." He recalls his course in philosophy at Bob Jones university where the course was offered for reasons of state accreditation in education, but it was basically a course to show that all philosophical speculation was foolish and that all a person needs is the Bible to know the truth. Colossians 2:8 began the course, read of course with no attention whatsoever to what "philosophy" Paul was actually talking about.
Webber is sympathetic to the separation of many fundamentalists from mainline churches in this period because, in his opinion, the "liberal" churches were far from truly "liberal" in their spirit. Rather, they were just as dogmatic in their opposition to fundamentalists as the fundamentalists came to be in their opposition to the liberals.
The fact that the "liberals" had reduced the gospel to a social gospel led many fundamentalists to oppose such social concerns as anti-gospel. Similarly, the strength of pre-millennial thought led to an abandonment of the world to what was thought to be an inevitable downward trajectory of morality and culture.
On a side note to those of my own tradition, you might recognize elements of the impact of this fundamentalist period that can still be found in our chuch, particularly among the smaller churches (One should not think that the smaller churches of our denomination are the majority of our denomination. On sheer numbers, there are as many Wesleyans in our "larger" churches as there are in all our "smaller" churches). As IWU has pondered founding a seminary, I have fielded questions of whether in fact such an educational move would mark the decline of our church rather than its maturation--a vestige of our anti-intellectual past. Many Wesleyans still equate Methodist with liberal, even though the most "Wesleyan" theologian in our denomination is Chris Bounds, who teaches theology at IWU and is United Methodist.
Finally, many Wesleyans still equate any focus on the poor as anti-Christian, even though Jesus' earthly message addressed the poor at least as much as it did eternal salvation (in Luke's presentation, concern for the poor far surpasses concern for eternal salvation). Further, there is the irony that the Wesleyan tradition has in its roots social concern as a dominant theme. It is an ironic consequence of the fundamenalist controversies of the early twentieth century that the focus of the Democratic platform on the poor is actually seen as a sign of its godlessness! Of course most Wesleyans with this perspective have no idea where their biases in this area came from historically.
1945-1966
After WW2, an optimistic generation of new Christian leaders wished to distance themselves from their negative fundamentalist forebears. Thus "neo-evangelicalism" was born. In reaction to the anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists, they strove to participate in the flow of intellectual thought. Fuller Seminary was founded as the flagship evangelical institution. Christianity Today was founded. The Reformed tradition dominated the scene.
The rise of Billy Graham and his subsequent shunning by Bob Jones represents the rift between fundamentalism and (neo) evangelicalism. Graham reaches out to any other Christians who will join his evangelicalistic mission. Jones insists on separation from those who do not hold the line in their beliefs. A good example of this distinction in more recent times was when Jerry Falwell was interviewed in relation to a scandal involving the then president of the National Association of Evangelicals. To the puzzlement of the media interviewer, Falwell indicated that he had nothing to do with that organization--no skin off my nose.
This generation of American evangelicals remained quite similar to its fundamentalist parents in many respects. The "inerrancy" touchstone grew up in this era.
1966-2000
Webber calls this period a time of increasing diversity in evangelicalism. For example, he argues that the initial leadership of neo-evangelicalism was Reformed. But in this third phase, they reluctantly had to reckon with evangelicals from the Wesleyan tradition. These Wesleyans were often considered "liberal" by the establishment evangelicals.
Even to this day, I would say that Arminians sit tentatively in relation to the Evangelical Theological Society, an organization that I have no interest in myself. John Piper has gone on record saying that we do not really belong.
Webber demarks the early part of this period by irreconcilable disagreement among evangelicals over biblical inerrancy. 1966 saw a failure to agree at a conference at Gordon College. Asbury Seminary and Fuller Seminary refused to define the term narrowly (Asbury) or to use it at all (Fuller). Meanwhile, those in the Reformed camp at Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, and Wheaton followed the narrow definitions of the Chicago Statement (1978) and used it as a political weapon for institutional control. Harold Lindsell's famous, The Battle for the Bible (1977) is an artifact of this period.
In terms of evangelism, this period saw the rise of the church growth movement. In my own church, theological interest almost completely disappeared in the age of John Maxwell. For some of us, it appeared that all that mattered was numbers. Distinctive doctrines of my own denomination almost completely disappeared from view. The norm was the "seeker sensitive" church and the focus was on being relevant.
Evangelicalism at the end of the twentieth century had become global, multicultural, and could include evangelical Anglicans. It even involved dialog with Catholic and Orthodox Christians. There are many signs of the identity crisis this has caused. Wheaton fired a professor for converting to Catholicism. The dominant theme of the Evangelical Theological Society in the early 2000's was who can we kick out next. The rise of evangelicals like Jim Wallis, whose focus is on social action, has grated the Nixon evangelicals who confused capitalism with the Bible.
2000-present
It is the rise of the "younger evangelicals" that Webber is interested in. They are neither the "traditional evangelicals," who have been kicking and screeming this last decade. 9-11 gave them a brief period of re-empowerment, one that they will increasingly see seep away in the days to come. Nor are they the "pragmatic evangelicals" symbolized by Willow Creek, whose confession of failure last year is another sign of the passing of the cultural guard.
Webber sees in Brian McLaren the rise of a new generation of evangelicals. These are orthodox believers. Indeed, they have a revived interest in the ancient elements of the church as found in the creeds. Webber's second chapter gives a basic description of this "emerging" group.
Webber gives 24 characteristics of the younger evangelicals. He published this book in 2002, and I already beg to differ with him on some points. But here is his list (I've flagged the ones I have questions about). I've highlighted the ones that seem more key.
1. Grew up in a postmodern world
2. Marked by a post 9-11 era (and we might now suggest perhaps a post-materialistic era)
3. Have a recovered sense of fallen human nature (we'll see)
4. Aware of a new context for ministry
5. Differ with the pragmatist approach to ministry
6. Minister with a new paradigm
7. Stand for absolutes (I have serious questions about this one)
8. The future runs through the past
9. Committed to the poor, especially in urban centers
10. Willing to live by the rules (I have questions about this one)
11. Facility with technology
12. Highly visual
13. Communicate through stories
14. Grasp the power of imagination
15. Appreciate the arts
16. Appreciate ritual and symbol
17. Long for community
18. Multicultural
19. Intergenerational (?)
20. Attracted to absolutes (I have questions about this)
21. Ready to commit
22. Shared wisdom
23. Demand authenticity
24. Holistic--unity of thought and action
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Colin Powell endorces Obama
As most of you will already know, Colin Powell thoughtfully endorsed Obama this morning on Meet the Press. You may not agree with his assessments, but his measured and thoughtful analysis is what we need more of in politics. What we don't need is the clearly partisan approach of the Keith Olbermanns, Rush Limbaughs, Bill Maher's, Bill O'Reilly's, etc. Powell is not objective--no one is. But this fair weighing of both sides is sorely lacking these days.
I firmly believe his perspective on America in general is where the country is headed, whether one agrees or not, whether Obama is elected or not.
Here's the video of his endorsement:
By the way, I don't know Obama, but once again someone who does puts to rest the attempt to defeat Obama by casting doubt on his character. If you disagree with Obama's positions more than you disagree with McCain's positions, vote against him. Or better, if you agree with McCain's positions more than you agree with Obama's, vote for him.
But don't vote because of some underhanded email, letter, or TV ad rumor against either candidate. They are aimed at the weak of mind. Don't be weak of mind.
I firmly believe his perspective on America in general is where the country is headed, whether one agrees or not, whether Obama is elected or not.
Here's the video of his endorsement:
By the way, I don't know Obama, but once again someone who does puts to rest the attempt to defeat Obama by casting doubt on his character. If you disagree with Obama's positions more than you disagree with McCain's positions, vote against him. Or better, if you agree with McCain's positions more than you agree with Obama's, vote for him.
But don't vote because of some underhanded email, letter, or TV ad rumor against either candidate. They are aimed at the weak of mind. Don't be weak of mind.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Saturday Sources: Book of the Watchers
Today I want to excerpt those parts of the "Book of the Watchers" (1 Enoch 1-36) that are potentially relevant to understanding the New Testament. The Enochic literature seems very important to understanding the New Testament context, especially parts of Matthew, 1 Peter, and Jude. I myself have wondered if Jerusalem Christianity had a significant Essene element, although ultimately that is much more the stuff of novels than of historical conclusion.
The Book of the Watchers is a composite piece, stitched together as so much of this type of Jewish literature. Its earliest parts likely go back to the 300's, and I would date the whole prior to the Maccabean crisis. 200BC seems a fair approximation.
I have again highlighted particularly important parallels. The translation is again excerpted from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, the finest English translation of it ever. I have only modified it very, very slightly.
_________
1:1-9
THE WORDS OF THE BLESSING WHICH ENOCH BLESSED THE RIGHTEOUS CHOSEN who will be present on the day of tribulation, to remove all the enemies; and the righteous will be saved.
And he took up his discourse and said, "Enoch, a righteous man whose eyes were opened by God, who had the vision of the Holy One and of heaven, which he showed me. From the words of the watchers and holy ones I heard everything; and as I heard everything from them, I also understood what I saw.
"Not for this generation do I expound, but concerning one that is distant I speak. And concerning the chosen I speak now, and concerning them I take up my discourse.
"The Great Holy One will come forth from his dwelling, and the eternal God will tread from thence upon Mount Sinai. He will appear with his army, he will appear with his mighty host from the heaven of heavens.
All the watchers will fear and [quake], and those who are hiding in all the ends of the earth will sing. All the ends of the earth will be shaken, and trembling and great fear will sieze them (the watchers) unto the ends of the earth.
The high mountains will be shaken and fall and break apart, and the high hills will be made low and melt like wax before the fire. The earth will be wholly rent asunder, and everything on earth will perish, and there will be judgment on all.
With the righteous he will make peace, and over the chosen there will be protection, and upon them will be mercy...
Look, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all humanity for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him." [quoted in Jude 14].
6:1-2; 7:1-2; 8:1, 4; 9:1, 3-7, 10-11; 10:1-6, 9, 10-13, 15
When the sons of men had multiplied, in those days, beautiful and comely daughters were born to them. And the watchers, the sons of heaven, saw them and desired them. And they said to one another, "Come, let us choose for ourselves wives from the daughters of men, and let us beget children for ourselves"...
These and all the others with them took for themselves wives from among them such as they chose. And they began to go in to them, and to defile themselves through them, and to teach them sorcery and charms, and to reveal to them the cutting of roots and plants. And they conceived from them and bore to them great giants.
Asael taught men to make swords of iron and weapons and shields and breastplates and every instrument of war... (And) as men were perishing, the cry went up to heaven.
Then Michael and Sariel and Raphael and Gabriel looked down from the sanctuary of heaven upon the earth and saw much bloodshed on the earth... They said to one another... "to [us] the souls of men make suit..."
And approaching, they said to the Lord of the Ages, "You are the God of gods and Lord of lords and King of kings and God of the ages. And the throne of your glory (exists) for every generation of the generations that are from of old. And your name (is) holy and great and blessed for all the ages.
"For you have made all things and have authority over all. All things are manifest and uncovered before you, and you see all things, and there is nothing that can be hidden from you. You see what Asael has done, who has taught iniquity on the earth... And (what) Shemihazah (has done) to whom you gave authority to rule over them who are with him...
"And now look, the spirits of the souls of the men who have died make suit... You know all things before they happen, and you see these things and you permit them, and you do not tell us what we ought to do to them with regard to these things."
Then the Most High declared, and the Great Holy One spoke... "Go to Noah and say to him in my name, 'Hide yourself' ... Teach the righteous one what he should do...
To Raphael he said, "Go Raphael, and bind Asael hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness... Throw him there... And on the day of the great judgment, he will be led away to the burning conflagration..."
And to Gabriel he said, "Go, Gabriel, to the bastards, to the half-breeds, to the sons of micegenation; and destroy the sons of the watchers from among the sons of men..."
And to Michael he said, "Go, Michael, bind Shemihazah and the others with him, who have mated with the daughters of men... until the everlasting judgment is consumated. Then they will be led away to the fiery abyss, and to the torture, and to the prison where they will be confined forever... Destroy all the spirits of the half-breeds and the sons of the watchers, because they have wronged men.
14:18-21
And I was looking and I saw a lofty throne; and its appearance was like ice, and its wheels were like the shining sun, and the voice of the cherubim, and from beneath the throne issued rivers of flaming fire. And I was unable to see. The Great Glory sat upon it; his apparel was like the appearance of the sun and whiter than much snow. No angel could enter into this house and look at his face because of the splendor and glory, and no human could look at him...
15:7-9
The spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling; but now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and flesh--they will call them evil spirits on the earth, for their dwelling will be on the earth. The spirits that have gone forth from the body of their flesh are evil spirits...
21:7-10; 22:1-6, 8-13
From there I traveled to another place, more terrible than this one. And I saw terrible things--a great fire burning and flaming there. And the place had a narrow cleft (extending) to the abyss, full of great pillars of fire, borne downward. Neither the measure nor the size was I able to see or to estimate.
Then I said, "How terrible is this place and fearful to look at!"
Then Uriel answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to me, "Enoch, why are you so frightened and shaken?
And I replied, "Because of this terrible place and because of the fearful sight."
And he said, "This place is a prison for the angels. Here they will be confined forever."
From there I traveled to another place. And he (Uriel) showed me to the west a great high mountain of hard rock. And there were four hollow places in it, deep and very smooth. Three of them were dark and one, illuminated; and a foundation of water was in the middle of it.
And I said, "How smooth are these hollows and altogether deep and dark to view."
Then Raphael answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to me, "These hollow places (are intended) that the spirits of the souls of the dead might be gathered into them. For this very (purpose) they were created, (that) here the souls of all human beings should be gathered. And look, these are the pits for the place of their confinement. Thus they were made until the time of the day (on) which they will be judged, and until the time of the day of the end of the great judgment that will be exacted from them"...
Then I asked about all the hollow places, why they were separated one from the other.
And he answered me and said, "These three were made that the spirits of the dead might be separated.
"This one has been separated for the spirits of the righteous, where the bright fountain of water is.
"And this one has been created for the [spirits of the] sinners, when they die and are buried in the earth, and judgment has not been executed on them in their life. Here their spirits are separated for this great torment, until the great day of judgment, of scourges and tortures of the cursed forever, that there might be a recompense for their spirits. There he will bind them forever.
"And this one has been separated for the spirits of them that make suit, who make disclosure about the destruction, when they were murdered in the days of the sinners.
"And this one was created for the spirits of the people who will not be pious, but sinners, who were godless, and they were companions with the lawless. And their spirits will not be punished on the day of judgment, nor will they be raised from there."
25:2-6; 26:1-2, 6; 27:1-3
"Then I answered him (Michael)--I, Enoch, and said, "Concerning all things I wish to know, but especially concerning this tree."
And he answered me and said, "This high mountain that you saw, whose peak is like the throne of God, is the seat where the Great Holy One, the Lord of glory, the King of eternity, will sit when he descends to visit the earth in goodness. And as for this fragrant tree, no flesh has the right to touch it until the great judgment, in which there will be vengeance on all and a consummation forever.
Then it will be given to the righteous and the pious, and its fruit will be food for the chosen. And it will be transplanted to the holy place, by the house of God, the King of eternity. Then they will rejoice greatly and be glad, and they will enter into the sanctuary. Its fragrances [will be] in their bones, and they will live a long life on the earth, such as your fathers lived also in their days"...
And I marveled at the mountain, and I marveled at the valley, I marveled exceedingly.
Then I said, "Why is this land blessed and all filled with trees, but this valley is cursed?"
Then [Sariel] answered, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to me, "This cursed valley is for those who are cursed forever. Here will be gathered all the cursed... Here the godless will bless the Lord of glory, the King of eternity.
The Book of the Watchers is a composite piece, stitched together as so much of this type of Jewish literature. Its earliest parts likely go back to the 300's, and I would date the whole prior to the Maccabean crisis. 200BC seems a fair approximation.
I have again highlighted particularly important parallels. The translation is again excerpted from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, the finest English translation of it ever. I have only modified it very, very slightly.
_________
1:1-9
THE WORDS OF THE BLESSING WHICH ENOCH BLESSED THE RIGHTEOUS CHOSEN who will be present on the day of tribulation, to remove all the enemies; and the righteous will be saved.
And he took up his discourse and said, "Enoch, a righteous man whose eyes were opened by God, who had the vision of the Holy One and of heaven, which he showed me. From the words of the watchers and holy ones I heard everything; and as I heard everything from them, I also understood what I saw.
"Not for this generation do I expound, but concerning one that is distant I speak. And concerning the chosen I speak now, and concerning them I take up my discourse.
"The Great Holy One will come forth from his dwelling, and the eternal God will tread from thence upon Mount Sinai. He will appear with his army, he will appear with his mighty host from the heaven of heavens.
All the watchers will fear and [quake], and those who are hiding in all the ends of the earth will sing. All the ends of the earth will be shaken, and trembling and great fear will sieze them (the watchers) unto the ends of the earth.
The high mountains will be shaken and fall and break apart, and the high hills will be made low and melt like wax before the fire. The earth will be wholly rent asunder, and everything on earth will perish, and there will be judgment on all.
With the righteous he will make peace, and over the chosen there will be protection, and upon them will be mercy...
Look, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all humanity for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him." [quoted in Jude 14].
6:1-2; 7:1-2; 8:1, 4; 9:1, 3-7, 10-11; 10:1-6, 9, 10-13, 15
When the sons of men had multiplied, in those days, beautiful and comely daughters were born to them. And the watchers, the sons of heaven, saw them and desired them. And they said to one another, "Come, let us choose for ourselves wives from the daughters of men, and let us beget children for ourselves"...
These and all the others with them took for themselves wives from among them such as they chose. And they began to go in to them, and to defile themselves through them, and to teach them sorcery and charms, and to reveal to them the cutting of roots and plants. And they conceived from them and bore to them great giants.
Asael taught men to make swords of iron and weapons and shields and breastplates and every instrument of war... (And) as men were perishing, the cry went up to heaven.
Then Michael and Sariel and Raphael and Gabriel looked down from the sanctuary of heaven upon the earth and saw much bloodshed on the earth... They said to one another... "to [us] the souls of men make suit..."
And approaching, they said to the Lord of the Ages, "You are the God of gods and Lord of lords and King of kings and God of the ages. And the throne of your glory (exists) for every generation of the generations that are from of old. And your name (is) holy and great and blessed for all the ages.
"For you have made all things and have authority over all. All things are manifest and uncovered before you, and you see all things, and there is nothing that can be hidden from you. You see what Asael has done, who has taught iniquity on the earth... And (what) Shemihazah (has done) to whom you gave authority to rule over them who are with him...
"And now look, the spirits of the souls of the men who have died make suit... You know all things before they happen, and you see these things and you permit them, and you do not tell us what we ought to do to them with regard to these things."
Then the Most High declared, and the Great Holy One spoke... "Go to Noah and say to him in my name, 'Hide yourself' ... Teach the righteous one what he should do...
To Raphael he said, "Go Raphael, and bind Asael hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness... Throw him there... And on the day of the great judgment, he will be led away to the burning conflagration..."
And to Gabriel he said, "Go, Gabriel, to the bastards, to the half-breeds, to the sons of micegenation; and destroy the sons of the watchers from among the sons of men..."
And to Michael he said, "Go, Michael, bind Shemihazah and the others with him, who have mated with the daughters of men... until the everlasting judgment is consumated. Then they will be led away to the fiery abyss, and to the torture, and to the prison where they will be confined forever... Destroy all the spirits of the half-breeds and the sons of the watchers, because they have wronged men.
14:18-21
And I was looking and I saw a lofty throne; and its appearance was like ice, and its wheels were like the shining sun, and the voice of the cherubim, and from beneath the throne issued rivers of flaming fire. And I was unable to see. The Great Glory sat upon it; his apparel was like the appearance of the sun and whiter than much snow. No angel could enter into this house and look at his face because of the splendor and glory, and no human could look at him...
15:7-9
The spirits of heaven, in heaven is their dwelling; but now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and flesh--they will call them evil spirits on the earth, for their dwelling will be on the earth. The spirits that have gone forth from the body of their flesh are evil spirits...
21:7-10; 22:1-6, 8-13
From there I traveled to another place, more terrible than this one. And I saw terrible things--a great fire burning and flaming there. And the place had a narrow cleft (extending) to the abyss, full of great pillars of fire, borne downward. Neither the measure nor the size was I able to see or to estimate.
Then I said, "How terrible is this place and fearful to look at!"
Then Uriel answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to me, "Enoch, why are you so frightened and shaken?
And I replied, "Because of this terrible place and because of the fearful sight."
And he said, "This place is a prison for the angels. Here they will be confined forever."
From there I traveled to another place. And he (Uriel) showed me to the west a great high mountain of hard rock. And there were four hollow places in it, deep and very smooth. Three of them were dark and one, illuminated; and a foundation of water was in the middle of it.
And I said, "How smooth are these hollows and altogether deep and dark to view."
Then Raphael answered me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to me, "These hollow places (are intended) that the spirits of the souls of the dead might be gathered into them. For this very (purpose) they were created, (that) here the souls of all human beings should be gathered. And look, these are the pits for the place of their confinement. Thus they were made until the time of the day (on) which they will be judged, and until the time of the day of the end of the great judgment that will be exacted from them"...
Then I asked about all the hollow places, why they were separated one from the other.
And he answered me and said, "These three were made that the spirits of the dead might be separated.
"This one has been separated for the spirits of the righteous, where the bright fountain of water is.
"And this one has been created for the [spirits of the] sinners, when they die and are buried in the earth, and judgment has not been executed on them in their life. Here their spirits are separated for this great torment, until the great day of judgment, of scourges and tortures of the cursed forever, that there might be a recompense for their spirits. There he will bind them forever.
"And this one has been separated for the spirits of them that make suit, who make disclosure about the destruction, when they were murdered in the days of the sinners.
"And this one was created for the spirits of the people who will not be pious, but sinners, who were godless, and they were companions with the lawless. And their spirits will not be punished on the day of judgment, nor will they be raised from there."
25:2-6; 26:1-2, 6; 27:1-3
"Then I answered him (Michael)--I, Enoch, and said, "Concerning all things I wish to know, but especially concerning this tree."
And he answered me and said, "This high mountain that you saw, whose peak is like the throne of God, is the seat where the Great Holy One, the Lord of glory, the King of eternity, will sit when he descends to visit the earth in goodness. And as for this fragrant tree, no flesh has the right to touch it until the great judgment, in which there will be vengeance on all and a consummation forever.
Then it will be given to the righteous and the pious, and its fruit will be food for the chosen. And it will be transplanted to the holy place, by the house of God, the King of eternity. Then they will rejoice greatly and be glad, and they will enter into the sanctuary. Its fragrances [will be] in their bones, and they will live a long life on the earth, such as your fathers lived also in their days"...
And I marveled at the mountain, and I marveled at the valley, I marveled exceedingly.
Then I said, "Why is this land blessed and all filled with trees, but this valley is cursed?"
Then [Sariel] answered, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said to me, "This cursed valley is for those who are cursed forever. Here will be gathered all the cursed... Here the godless will bless the Lord of glory, the King of eternity.
Who Reads This Blog?
I think some of you might be interested in who is reading my blog these days. My readership is not great as blogs go, only about 100 unique individuals a day and that's more than normal.
I pulled up stats on yesterday, which was a little lower than some days but better than usual on a Friday. Here's how it broke down:
170 visits
about 230 page views
about 95 unique visitors
Of the visits, 140 of them were from the US. The other visits were from 11 other countries, of which Great Britain and Canada had the most (8 and 7 visits respectively).
In the US, more come from Indiana (30 visits) than elsewhere, although I had visitors yesterday from 30 states. I don't have hardly any readers from the non-coastal western states like Arizona and Montana. Ohio and Florida came in second and third yesterday (17 and 16 respectively), with Craig bolstering my numbers in Tampa (11 visits from Tampa :-).
In Indiana, 8 visits were from Marion (which includes me). I checked Marion for October 13, when I had a comparable amount of visits, and there were 22 visits on that day from Marion.
My point is that IWU students do not comprise a significant portion of my readers, for those of you who were worried. I know a few read it, because I have had them mention it to me. I am not ashamed of my thoughts, but a person would not know who I am thinking of voting for unless they had read this blog. And again, as an Arminian, I reserve the right to change my vote if I am convinced otherwise.
I pulled up stats on yesterday, which was a little lower than some days but better than usual on a Friday. Here's how it broke down:
170 visits
about 230 page views
about 95 unique visitors
Of the visits, 140 of them were from the US. The other visits were from 11 other countries, of which Great Britain and Canada had the most (8 and 7 visits respectively).
In the US, more come from Indiana (30 visits) than elsewhere, although I had visitors yesterday from 30 states. I don't have hardly any readers from the non-coastal western states like Arizona and Montana. Ohio and Florida came in second and third yesterday (17 and 16 respectively), with Craig bolstering my numbers in Tampa (11 visits from Tampa :-).
In Indiana, 8 visits were from Marion (which includes me). I checked Marion for October 13, when I had a comparable amount of visits, and there were 22 visits on that day from Marion.
My point is that IWU students do not comprise a significant portion of my readers, for those of you who were worried. I know a few read it, because I have had them mention it to me. I am not ashamed of my thoughts, but a person would not know who I am thinking of voting for unless they had read this blog. And again, as an Arminian, I reserve the right to change my vote if I am convinced otherwise.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Shame on Political Manipulators...
I was a little worried tonight when I heard this Robocall from my own party:
"Hello, I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capital, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead this country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee."
So I dug around to see what John McCain himself thinks:
"I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States."
... and in the same rally:
"... No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on, on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."
... and in the brief serious moment of his Al Smith roast:
"I don't want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I've had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It's not for nothing that he's inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond.
"Senator Obama talks about making history and he's made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance.
"I can't wish my opponent luck. But I do wish him well."
Hear, hear. I believe that's who you really are, John McCain, though I mourn the moments of weakness such as when you let your people use Robocalls like the above or when you or Palin follow those scriptwriters. It makes me lose respect for you and my own party. It makes me want to vote all the more for the other guy.
So I'm listening to you, John McCain, in your moments of honesty and honor. And I decry the attempts of losers to manipulate the feeble of mind because they have not been able to win on the merits.
I am not alone.
"Hello, I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capital, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead this country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee."
So I dug around to see what John McCain himself thinks:
"I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States."
... and in the same rally:
"... No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on, on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."
... and in the brief serious moment of his Al Smith roast:
"I don't want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I've had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It's not for nothing that he's inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond.
"Senator Obama talks about making history and he's made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance.
"I can't wish my opponent luck. But I do wish him well."
Hear, hear. I believe that's who you really are, John McCain, though I mourn the moments of weakness such as when you let your people use Robocalls like the above or when you or Palin follow those scriptwriters. It makes me lose respect for you and my own party. It makes me want to vote all the more for the other guy.
So I'm listening to you, John McCain, in your moments of honesty and honor. And I decry the attempts of losers to manipulate the feeble of mind because they have not been able to win on the merits.
I am not alone.
Introducing a new paraphrase Bible...
... The Ancient Message, by Ken Skank
Yes, The AM is a new paraphrase Bible that would have come in handy if you were a first century English speaker. It's a targumic paraphrase of the biblical text... in English!
Here are just a few samples:
"Because both the living and the dead will have to answer to God the judge, Jesus also preached the good news of another chance of life to those who were already dead before him. That way they will have paid the penalty for their sins as mortals by dying. But they can still live again because God the judge thinks they should."
and
"So because God made wives to bring glory to their husbands, a wife should have a veil on her hair to show that she is a respectable woman when she is interacting with the heavenly realm in prayer or prophecy, a realm where males like the angels are present."
and
"And God imprisoned and has kept in holding the fallen angels who left the jobs that God first gave them and left their place in the heavens to have sex with human women during the days before the Flood. He has reserved them for a verdict of never ending chains in the dark regions under the earth on the Day of Judgment.
"The same goes for Sodom and Gomorrah and all the cities around them in the same way that the fallen angels are headed for eternal punishment. They left their own mortal sexual kind and went after angel bodies. They stand before you as an example of people in line for a judgment of eternal fire."
I just thought with all the new translations coming out, this one should be publicized too!
:-)
Yes, The AM is a new paraphrase Bible that would have come in handy if you were a first century English speaker. It's a targumic paraphrase of the biblical text... in English!
Here are just a few samples:
"Because both the living and the dead will have to answer to God the judge, Jesus also preached the good news of another chance of life to those who were already dead before him. That way they will have paid the penalty for their sins as mortals by dying. But they can still live again because God the judge thinks they should."
and
"So because God made wives to bring glory to their husbands, a wife should have a veil on her hair to show that she is a respectable woman when she is interacting with the heavenly realm in prayer or prophecy, a realm where males like the angels are present."
and
"And God imprisoned and has kept in holding the fallen angels who left the jobs that God first gave them and left their place in the heavens to have sex with human women during the days before the Flood. He has reserved them for a verdict of never ending chains in the dark regions under the earth on the Day of Judgment.
"The same goes for Sodom and Gomorrah and all the cities around them in the same way that the fallen angels are headed for eternal punishment. They left their own mortal sexual kind and went after angel bodies. They stand before you as an example of people in line for a judgment of eternal fire."
I just thought with all the new translations coming out, this one should be publicized too!
:-)
Quotes, Allusions and Echoes in Hebrews 8
With Hebrews 8 we get to the raison d'etre of my SBL paper. The theme of the section is "Reconfiguring Houses and Family Households," and my paper is about Hebrews' reconceptualization of the sanctuary in the texts of the Pentateuch. It's ended up a bit strangely configured because of the way I ended up giving the paper, but oh well:
1. intertextuality: quotes, allusions, and echos
2. reconceptualization of the sanctuary of the Pentateuchal text
3. intertextual echoes of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction
I will probably do 10 minutes of #3 and then 15 of #2.
So on to Hebrews 8. With verse 2, we recognize that the author is going to consider the earthly tabernacle a less authentic sanctuary than the true sanctuary in the heavens. Throughout the section, it is not the temple in Jerusalem that the author is directly addressing, but the wilderness tabernacle of the Pentateuch.
If Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest (8:4). Earthly priests serve the heavenly "in a shadowy illustration" (8:5). I will argue what I have often written elsewhere, partially agreeing with Lincoln Hurst: "copy" is a completely inappropriate translation for hypodeigma. The literal "house" of the Pentateuchal text (Hebrews doesn't actually use the word house this way, I think) has become a shadowy pointer toward the true heavenly one.
8:5 quotes Exodus 25:40, spliced together in a manner attested in Philo with 25:9: Look, you will make everything according to the type that was shown you in the mountain. We are to understand that Moses was instructed to build the tabernacle according to what he saw on the mountain.
But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? A Platonic model of the tabernacle?
What does the "all" mean? If "all" really means that every single thing in the earthly tabernacle corresponded to the equivalent in the heavenly sanctuary, then we are surely talking either about an apocalyptic temple structure in heaven or a Platonic archetype. One might argue that the splicing of the "all" from Exodus 25:9 into 25:40 implies emphasis on the word "all."
It may very well be that the author of Hebrews did think that every item in the earthly tabernacle had some allegorical significance. But, as mentioned above, the particular splicing together the author does here is also attested in Philo (as are several other "unique" Hebrews splicings), so we cannot know for sure how much significance to see in the way he makes the quote.
In general, the notion of an apocalyptic temple in heaven, especially one waiting to be revealed on earth, does not fit Hebrews tabernacle rhetoric very well. For one thing, Hebrews gives little basis for seeing an outer room to the heavenly sanctuary. Accordingly, neither a Platonic archetype nor a heavenly temple that serves as an exact prototype fits the bill very well. Further, Hebrews has no place for a sanctuary on earth in the eschaton. Indeed, Hebrews gives scant evidence for the existence of an earth in the eschaton at all.
With the throne room of heaven as the clear correspondance to the heavenly Holy of Holies, with scant basis for an outer room to the "heavenly sanctuary," with clear evidence of the author amalgamating multiple earthly OT sacrifices as a varied and "shadowy" correspondent of the singular heavenly "sacrifice," it seems more likely than not that the heavenly sanctuary is not a distinct structure in heaven at all but a metaphorical treatment of the highest heaven itself (e.g., 9:24).
The author has thus "reconfigured" the earthly house of God, the tabernacle/temple, as heaven itself. The place of God, the highest heaven, is the true tent, of which the wilderness tabernacle was only a shadowy illustration. And the sacrificial practices the earthly priests made in Levitical sanctuaries were only shadowy illustrations of the one true "sacrifice" made by Christ.
1. intertextuality: quotes, allusions, and echos
2. reconceptualization of the sanctuary of the Pentateuchal text
3. intertextual echoes of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction
I will probably do 10 minutes of #3 and then 15 of #2.
So on to Hebrews 8. With verse 2, we recognize that the author is going to consider the earthly tabernacle a less authentic sanctuary than the true sanctuary in the heavens. Throughout the section, it is not the temple in Jerusalem that the author is directly addressing, but the wilderness tabernacle of the Pentateuch.
If Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest (8:4). Earthly priests serve the heavenly "in a shadowy illustration" (8:5). I will argue what I have often written elsewhere, partially agreeing with Lincoln Hurst: "copy" is a completely inappropriate translation for hypodeigma. The literal "house" of the Pentateuchal text (Hebrews doesn't actually use the word house this way, I think) has become a shadowy pointer toward the true heavenly one.
8:5 quotes Exodus 25:40, spliced together in a manner attested in Philo with 25:9: Look, you will make everything according to the type that was shown you in the mountain. We are to understand that Moses was instructed to build the tabernacle according to what he saw on the mountain.
But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? But what did he see? Was it an actual structure in heaven? Was it heaven itself? A Platonic model of the tabernacle?
What does the "all" mean? If "all" really means that every single thing in the earthly tabernacle corresponded to the equivalent in the heavenly sanctuary, then we are surely talking either about an apocalyptic temple structure in heaven or a Platonic archetype. One might argue that the splicing of the "all" from Exodus 25:9 into 25:40 implies emphasis on the word "all."
It may very well be that the author of Hebrews did think that every item in the earthly tabernacle had some allegorical significance. But, as mentioned above, the particular splicing together the author does here is also attested in Philo (as are several other "unique" Hebrews splicings), so we cannot know for sure how much significance to see in the way he makes the quote.
In general, the notion of an apocalyptic temple in heaven, especially one waiting to be revealed on earth, does not fit Hebrews tabernacle rhetoric very well. For one thing, Hebrews gives little basis for seeing an outer room to the heavenly sanctuary. Accordingly, neither a Platonic archetype nor a heavenly temple that serves as an exact prototype fits the bill very well. Further, Hebrews has no place for a sanctuary on earth in the eschaton. Indeed, Hebrews gives scant evidence for the existence of an earth in the eschaton at all.
With the throne room of heaven as the clear correspondance to the heavenly Holy of Holies, with scant basis for an outer room to the "heavenly sanctuary," with clear evidence of the author amalgamating multiple earthly OT sacrifices as a varied and "shadowy" correspondent of the singular heavenly "sacrifice," it seems more likely than not that the heavenly sanctuary is not a distinct structure in heaven at all but a metaphorical treatment of the highest heaven itself (e.g., 9:24).
The author has thus "reconfigured" the earthly house of God, the tabernacle/temple, as heaven itself. The place of God, the highest heaven, is the true tent, of which the wilderness tabernacle was only a shadowy illustration. And the sacrificial practices the earthly priests made in Levitical sanctuaries were only shadowy illustrations of the one true "sacrifice" made by Christ.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
McCain Beats Obama...
... at the Al Smith dinner tonight.
McCain was hilarious, even if there were a few slightly tense parts. Obama had a few laughs but it's pretty clear to me that he is basically a serious guy.
I wasn't able to find it all in one video, so I've pasted the two parts. Enjoy!
Part 1:
Part 2:
McCain was hilarious, even if there were a few slightly tense parts. Obama had a few laughs but it's pretty clear to me that he is basically a serious guy.
I wasn't able to find it all in one video, so I've pasted the two parts. Enjoy!
Part 1:
Part 2:
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Who Won in the Last Debate?
I fell asleep for about the first half hour of the debate, in which I hear McCain shined. The sound bites I'm hearing is that McCain won the first half hour but then didn't distinguish himself as much in the last hour.
What did you think?
By the way, this old Batman episode is getting a lot of travel tonight. Ha!
What did you think?
By the way, this old Batman episode is getting a lot of travel tonight. Ha!
Obama Well Ahead?
I don't trust the polls, frankly.
I was undecided in the 2000 election right up until I went into the booth. I told the students in line with me that I was thinking of voting for my wife (I'm pretty sure they were voting for Gore).
But when I got in the booth, my default took over, and I voted for Bush. I voted for Bush because I was raised to think of Democrats as immoral liberals. I voted for Bush because I didn't like what I took to be Clinton and Gore's arrogance. And, thought I, how much damage can a president really do? Besides, this is Indiana, how I vote won't make a lick of difference.
Of course that was before 9-11 and the subsequent Iraq War.
My point is not to tell about my regrets in the 2000 election. My point is to say that I don't believe the polls that show Obama up by so much.
I do think most of those who have said they will vote for Obama probably will. He might loose two or three per cent to the Bradley effect.
But I'm guessing today that almost all of those who are still calling themselves undecided at this point of the game will probably break McCain because they just don't trust a black man named Barack Hussein Obama to be in the White House.
People say race doesn't bother them when they're talking. But then again, I signed up to jump out of an airplane and to bungy jump while I was on the ground. I felt a little differently in the plane or on the crane.
We'll see, but I'm thinking Obama needs about a 10% lead in the polls actually to be elected.
P.S. I did make myself jump.
I was undecided in the 2000 election right up until I went into the booth. I told the students in line with me that I was thinking of voting for my wife (I'm pretty sure they were voting for Gore).
But when I got in the booth, my default took over, and I voted for Bush. I voted for Bush because I was raised to think of Democrats as immoral liberals. I voted for Bush because I didn't like what I took to be Clinton and Gore's arrogance. And, thought I, how much damage can a president really do? Besides, this is Indiana, how I vote won't make a lick of difference.
Of course that was before 9-11 and the subsequent Iraq War.
My point is not to tell about my regrets in the 2000 election. My point is to say that I don't believe the polls that show Obama up by so much.
I do think most of those who have said they will vote for Obama probably will. He might loose two or three per cent to the Bradley effect.
But I'm guessing today that almost all of those who are still calling themselves undecided at this point of the game will probably break McCain because they just don't trust a black man named Barack Hussein Obama to be in the White House.
People say race doesn't bother them when they're talking. But then again, I signed up to jump out of an airplane and to bungy jump while I was on the ground. I felt a little differently in the plane or on the crane.
We'll see, but I'm thinking Obama needs about a 10% lead in the polls actually to be elected.
P.S. I did make myself jump.
Explanatory Notes: Romans 1:16-17
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel...
This verse marks the transition out of the thanksgiving section and into the body of the letter of Romans proper. Romans 1:16-17 constitute the basic thesis of Romans, a general statement that is played out especially in the first eleven chapters. The conjunction "for" marks the transition in section. Paul is ready to preach to those at Rome. Why? Because the gospel holds the possibility of salvation for them.
The ancient world was an "honor-shame" culture, rather than a "guilt" culture such as most of the Western world today. Westerners tend to be individualists. We formulate our identities and our sense of self as individual entities. We "have it our way" at restaurants, who oblige us by holding the pickle or holding the lettuce. "Special orders don't upset us."
We date, sometimes for very long periods of time, because as highly differentiated individuals, it can take a while to figure out if we are going to be compatible with someone else for the rest of our lives. We also feel comparatively free to break up with our spouses if it doesn't work for us as individuals. We each decide as individuals what we believe, and we value the person who is true to their beliefs, even when everyone else disagrees.
We are introspective. We can look deep inside ourselves to ask why we feel the way we do and why we acted the way we did. We feel guilt--a sense of whether we have acted according to our individual values.
On the other hand, we do not feel shame, which is a devaluation of ourselves because we have not acted according to the values of the groups to which we belong. The biblical worlds were group cultures, not individualistic cultures like the Western world. Marriages could be arranged before a person was even born because a person's identity was largely fixed at birth. You were born male or female into a family with a certain status that belonged to a particular people group.
Unlike the modern, Western world, where we prize the tale of the "self-made man" or the "rags to riches" story, it was generally expected that a person would be born and die with the same basic status in life. If your father was a carpenter, the expectation was that you would likely be one too. Your identity was embedded in the groups to which you were born into and thus belonged.
Shame in this context is thus the sense that one has not lived up to the values of the groups that constitute your identity. When Paul says he is not ashamed of the gospel, he no doubt alludes to the fact that many Jews--one of the major groups that constituted his natural identity--would have seen the gospel as discordant with Jewish values. After all, "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" (Gal. 3:*).
But Paul's value system and identity-defining group has changed. He is not ashamed of the gospel because in the conflict of his identity, the fact that he is "in Christ" has won out.
He is not ashamed of the gospel. We have already seen in 1:3 that this particular good news is "concerning His Son." It is the good news that Jesus is the Lord, Jesus is the promised king through whom God will bring His reign back to the earth.
... for it is the power of God for salvation, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
The good news entails the possibility of salvation. Salvation for Paul is primarily future oriented. It is about escaping the coming wrath of God on the Day of Judgment. Paul can speak of being saved in the present tense. Ephesians 2:8 even speaks of being saved in the past tense.
But Paul does not use salvation language literally in reference to something we escape now. There are things that he believes we escape now, like the power of Sin. But he does not use salvation language in this way. The power of the gospel for salvation is the power of Jesus Christ to rescue us from the coming visitation of God's judgment on the world.
This salvation came first to the Jews. Jesus came into the world as a child of Israel and the Messiah is of the Jews (Rom. 10:*). But essential for Paul's understanding of the gospel is that the Jew is not thereby one bit more worthy of God's salvation, even if they have a special place of honor in that kingdom. The gospel is also to the Greek, who here represents the entirety of the Gentiles, non-Jews.
1:17 For in it [the gospel], the righteousness of God is revealed...
The interpretation of the phrase "the righteousness of God" in recent times has a long and complicated history. The story starts with the Roman Catholic understanding of the phrase in the late Middle Ages, namely, as a reference to the justice of God as he distributes it to the world. The Latin Vulgate rendered the phrase as the iustitia Dei, and it was thus all to easy to understand the verse to say that the "justice" of God was revealed in the gospel, just as the next verse talks about the wrath of God being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.
Martin Luther recognized another possible way to take the phrase, namely, in reference to a righteousness from God, which is the way some translations have actually rendered the phrase (e.g., the New International Version). Does not Paul champion justification through faith in Romans, dikaioo being the verb "to justify" and dikaiosyne being the noun "righteousness"? Should we not then understand the "righteousness of God" to be none other than the righteousness God assigns to us on the basis of our faith rather than our works?
For Luther such righteousness was an "imputed" righteousness, for we are truly sinners. It is a legal fiction in which God considers us legally innocent even though we are in truth guilty. Some later (e.g., John Wesley) would argue that such righteousness is not only imputed but truly imparted through the Holy Spirit as well so that we can truly become blameless ethically as we walk in the Spirit.
However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940's triggered a re-examination of the phrase in the light of its Jewish background, and Romans scholarship has returned to the conclusion that whatever the phrase, "the righteousness of God" might mean exactly, it refers primarily at least in this verse to an aspect of God or His action rather than to justification in relation to humanity. Ernst Käsemann took "the righteousness of God" to mean something like the "justifying of God," which for him was God's action to set the whole cosmos right, to justify it.
If we read the phrase against the backdrop of the Old Testament and contemporary Jewish literature of the day, we end up seeing it as a reference to God's righteousness, which in the later part of Isaiah (40-66) appears regularly in parallel with the salvation of God. Isaiah thus tempts us to understand the phrase as God's propensity to save, especially His people, but now also the whole world. One scholar translates the phrase well when he thinks of it as God's "saving righteousness."
Recent days have seen a return to reading Jesus and Paul in their Jewish contexts. The result is an appropriate recognition of Israel as the starting point for understanding how Paul conceptualized the people of God. However, it is perhaps unwise to think of God's righteousness as His covenant faithfulness to Israel, with some highly developed theology of the Gentiles inclusion in Israel. It is not that we cannot find statements in Paul to support these elements of a reconstructed Pauline theology. It is only that those scholars who advocate this reconstruction probably have made a tidier system out of Paul's thought than Paul himself and thus they run the risk of skewing some of Paul's comments by their system.
... from faith [leading] to faith, as it is written, "The righteous person on the basis of faith will live."
The expression "from faith to faith" is variously interpreted. Given a similar grammatical expression in 2 Corinthians *, some have taken it something like "completely by faith" or as the NIV translates it "by faith from first to last." However, with the shift back to understanding the "righteousness of God" in terms of God's righteousness, perhaps most scholars see the phrase as a reference to a movement from God's faith, His righteous faithfulness, to the human response of faith. A smaller group of scholars sees the progression here from Jesus' faithfulness to our faith.
Paul then quotes Habakkuk 2:4, which is a foundational verse for him. We should understand Paul to be alluding to this verse every time he uses the expression, "from faith," or as we have translated it here, "on the basis of faith." The phrase is thus a shorthand way of referring to Paul's understanding of this verse, namely, as teaching that it is the person who is righteous on the basis of his or her faith who will live, who will be resurrected.
Some scholars further see in this verse an allusion to Jesus' faith, taking the phrase "the Righteous One" as a reference to the Messiah and thus a prophecy of Jesus' resurrection on the basis of his faith. This is certainly possible, although it is difficult to know on the basis of this verse alone. We would argue that Paul sees the justification of both humanity and Jesus as being on the basis of faith, drawing on 2 Corinthians 4:13 as a key to this underlying pattern of thought in Paul. Thus it is both the faith of Jesus and the faith of believers that has justified, Jesus with true innocence and believers because they are in the faith of the Son of God (Gal. 2:20).
This verse marks the transition out of the thanksgiving section and into the body of the letter of Romans proper. Romans 1:16-17 constitute the basic thesis of Romans, a general statement that is played out especially in the first eleven chapters. The conjunction "for" marks the transition in section. Paul is ready to preach to those at Rome. Why? Because the gospel holds the possibility of salvation for them.
The ancient world was an "honor-shame" culture, rather than a "guilt" culture such as most of the Western world today. Westerners tend to be individualists. We formulate our identities and our sense of self as individual entities. We "have it our way" at restaurants, who oblige us by holding the pickle or holding the lettuce. "Special orders don't upset us."
We date, sometimes for very long periods of time, because as highly differentiated individuals, it can take a while to figure out if we are going to be compatible with someone else for the rest of our lives. We also feel comparatively free to break up with our spouses if it doesn't work for us as individuals. We each decide as individuals what we believe, and we value the person who is true to their beliefs, even when everyone else disagrees.
We are introspective. We can look deep inside ourselves to ask why we feel the way we do and why we acted the way we did. We feel guilt--a sense of whether we have acted according to our individual values.
On the other hand, we do not feel shame, which is a devaluation of ourselves because we have not acted according to the values of the groups to which we belong. The biblical worlds were group cultures, not individualistic cultures like the Western world. Marriages could be arranged before a person was even born because a person's identity was largely fixed at birth. You were born male or female into a family with a certain status that belonged to a particular people group.
Unlike the modern, Western world, where we prize the tale of the "self-made man" or the "rags to riches" story, it was generally expected that a person would be born and die with the same basic status in life. If your father was a carpenter, the expectation was that you would likely be one too. Your identity was embedded in the groups to which you were born into and thus belonged.
Shame in this context is thus the sense that one has not lived up to the values of the groups that constitute your identity. When Paul says he is not ashamed of the gospel, he no doubt alludes to the fact that many Jews--one of the major groups that constituted his natural identity--would have seen the gospel as discordant with Jewish values. After all, "cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" (Gal. 3:*).
But Paul's value system and identity-defining group has changed. He is not ashamed of the gospel because in the conflict of his identity, the fact that he is "in Christ" has won out.
He is not ashamed of the gospel. We have already seen in 1:3 that this particular good news is "concerning His Son." It is the good news that Jesus is the Lord, Jesus is the promised king through whom God will bring His reign back to the earth.
... for it is the power of God for salvation, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
The good news entails the possibility of salvation. Salvation for Paul is primarily future oriented. It is about escaping the coming wrath of God on the Day of Judgment. Paul can speak of being saved in the present tense. Ephesians 2:8 even speaks of being saved in the past tense.
But Paul does not use salvation language literally in reference to something we escape now. There are things that he believes we escape now, like the power of Sin. But he does not use salvation language in this way. The power of the gospel for salvation is the power of Jesus Christ to rescue us from the coming visitation of God's judgment on the world.
This salvation came first to the Jews. Jesus came into the world as a child of Israel and the Messiah is of the Jews (Rom. 10:*). But essential for Paul's understanding of the gospel is that the Jew is not thereby one bit more worthy of God's salvation, even if they have a special place of honor in that kingdom. The gospel is also to the Greek, who here represents the entirety of the Gentiles, non-Jews.
1:17 For in it [the gospel], the righteousness of God is revealed...
The interpretation of the phrase "the righteousness of God" in recent times has a long and complicated history. The story starts with the Roman Catholic understanding of the phrase in the late Middle Ages, namely, as a reference to the justice of God as he distributes it to the world. The Latin Vulgate rendered the phrase as the iustitia Dei, and it was thus all to easy to understand the verse to say that the "justice" of God was revealed in the gospel, just as the next verse talks about the wrath of God being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.
Martin Luther recognized another possible way to take the phrase, namely, in reference to a righteousness from God, which is the way some translations have actually rendered the phrase (e.g., the New International Version). Does not Paul champion justification through faith in Romans, dikaioo being the verb "to justify" and dikaiosyne being the noun "righteousness"? Should we not then understand the "righteousness of God" to be none other than the righteousness God assigns to us on the basis of our faith rather than our works?
For Luther such righteousness was an "imputed" righteousness, for we are truly sinners. It is a legal fiction in which God considers us legally innocent even though we are in truth guilty. Some later (e.g., John Wesley) would argue that such righteousness is not only imputed but truly imparted through the Holy Spirit as well so that we can truly become blameless ethically as we walk in the Spirit.
However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late 1940's triggered a re-examination of the phrase in the light of its Jewish background, and Romans scholarship has returned to the conclusion that whatever the phrase, "the righteousness of God" might mean exactly, it refers primarily at least in this verse to an aspect of God or His action rather than to justification in relation to humanity. Ernst Käsemann took "the righteousness of God" to mean something like the "justifying of God," which for him was God's action to set the whole cosmos right, to justify it.
If we read the phrase against the backdrop of the Old Testament and contemporary Jewish literature of the day, we end up seeing it as a reference to God's righteousness, which in the later part of Isaiah (40-66) appears regularly in parallel with the salvation of God. Isaiah thus tempts us to understand the phrase as God's propensity to save, especially His people, but now also the whole world. One scholar translates the phrase well when he thinks of it as God's "saving righteousness."
Recent days have seen a return to reading Jesus and Paul in their Jewish contexts. The result is an appropriate recognition of Israel as the starting point for understanding how Paul conceptualized the people of God. However, it is perhaps unwise to think of God's righteousness as His covenant faithfulness to Israel, with some highly developed theology of the Gentiles inclusion in Israel. It is not that we cannot find statements in Paul to support these elements of a reconstructed Pauline theology. It is only that those scholars who advocate this reconstruction probably have made a tidier system out of Paul's thought than Paul himself and thus they run the risk of skewing some of Paul's comments by their system.
... from faith [leading] to faith, as it is written, "The righteous person on the basis of faith will live."
The expression "from faith to faith" is variously interpreted. Given a similar grammatical expression in 2 Corinthians *, some have taken it something like "completely by faith" or as the NIV translates it "by faith from first to last." However, with the shift back to understanding the "righteousness of God" in terms of God's righteousness, perhaps most scholars see the phrase as a reference to a movement from God's faith, His righteous faithfulness, to the human response of faith. A smaller group of scholars sees the progression here from Jesus' faithfulness to our faith.
Paul then quotes Habakkuk 2:4, which is a foundational verse for him. We should understand Paul to be alluding to this verse every time he uses the expression, "from faith," or as we have translated it here, "on the basis of faith." The phrase is thus a shorthand way of referring to Paul's understanding of this verse, namely, as teaching that it is the person who is righteous on the basis of his or her faith who will live, who will be resurrected.
Some scholars further see in this verse an allusion to Jesus' faith, taking the phrase "the Righteous One" as a reference to the Messiah and thus a prophecy of Jesus' resurrection on the basis of his faith. This is certainly possible, although it is difficult to know on the basis of this verse alone. We would argue that Paul sees the justification of both humanity and Jesus as being on the basis of faith, drawing on 2 Corinthians 4:13 as a key to this underlying pattern of thought in Paul. Thus it is both the faith of Jesus and the faith of believers that has justified, Jesus with true innocence and believers because they are in the faith of the Son of God (Gal. 2:20).
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What will become of post-NIV evangelicalism?
It occurred to me this morning that Bible translations may very well be a way to map sociological developments within evangelical Christianity in America. I think I've written here before that I believe the NIV will now steadily decline. Those over 40 will continue to use it, I suppose, until they die... maybe.
But there is now something better than it in every category, so the only ones that will continue to use it are those for whom it has become the new King James.
When I think back a couple decades, versions were a good sociological analysis even then. Fundamentalists used the King James, and evangelical pastors and lay people used the NIV. I would guess that the "missional" minded, radical Jesus People types used things like the Living Bible and Today's English Version. Scholars used the RSV and many more scholarly minded evangelicals used the NASB.
Today scholars use the NRSV. But there is no NIV equivalent for the next generation of evangelicals yet that will command as much use as the NIV had in the shift away from the KJV. Evangelical scholars, particularly those of a Calvinist or complementarian bent, now prefer the ESV. It will be a major heir of the NIV. I'm guessing that the NLT will take an equal or greater portion from older NIV and missional types. Younger fundamentalists might use the New King James or shift to the Holman Standard Bible.
No offence to the TNIV, which is much superior to the NIV, but I'm just not sure it has a power group to give it dominance. But I would be quite happy for IWU and the Wesleyan Church to start using it as a default over the NIV. Of course in this postmodern world, it remains to be seen whether there will ever be a default again.
But there is now something better than it in every category, so the only ones that will continue to use it are those for whom it has become the new King James.
When I think back a couple decades, versions were a good sociological analysis even then. Fundamentalists used the King James, and evangelical pastors and lay people used the NIV. I would guess that the "missional" minded, radical Jesus People types used things like the Living Bible and Today's English Version. Scholars used the RSV and many more scholarly minded evangelicals used the NASB.
Today scholars use the NRSV. But there is no NIV equivalent for the next generation of evangelicals yet that will command as much use as the NIV had in the shift away from the KJV. Evangelical scholars, particularly those of a Calvinist or complementarian bent, now prefer the ESV. It will be a major heir of the NIV. I'm guessing that the NLT will take an equal or greater portion from older NIV and missional types. Younger fundamentalists might use the New King James or shift to the Holman Standard Bible.
No offence to the TNIV, which is much superior to the NIV, but I'm just not sure it has a power group to give it dominance. But I would be quite happy for IWU and the Wesleyan Church to start using it as a default over the NIV. Of course in this postmodern world, it remains to be seen whether there will ever be a default again.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Shane Claiborne at IWU Today
We had Shane Claiborne in chapel today, with a Q & A session this afternoon. Here's the mp3 of it. A significant portion of the campus read his The Irresistible Revolution: living as an ordinary radical this summer. All the proceeds go to the poor.
I'm about half way through and find it a very readable and attention holding book. I hope I can get my teenage step daughters to read it. If you want to know what the evangelical youth of the next generation look like, read this book.
Claiborne is a breath of fresh air. Yes, we all know that he represents one end of the spectrum. He reminds me of the Jesus People in Chicago in the 60's. I don't agree with all his positions.
But he is far more right than wrong, I firmly believe. It is a matter of the gospel and the message of Jesus in the gospels. Frankly, I can't even get into the mind of a Christian who gets angry about a guy like this one. What was the fuss at that other college that ended up cancelling him? Because he has dredlocks? Really! How can anyone with the heart of Christ find this man offensive if they've really listened to him?
I shouldn't assume you know his message. He is all about the simple life and giving away everything we have to give to those in need. He has a bit of the Barna perspective on the church, but we need to hear what he has to say.
There is a broader issue at work when people get upset at visitors like Claiborne... or at me for even thinking about voting for a Democrat. Tons of Christian colleges were founded in the late 1800's/early 1900's to withdraw from developments in broader Christian culture and its educational systems, to insulate our children and, to be honest, to indoctrinate them in our beliefs.
Most such groups did not have the clout or the power to carve a space for themselves at the broader educational table. These Christian groups were "group cultures" whose goal was not to teach critical thinking but to teach their children the beliefs and practices of their group.
There are still groups of this sort. But it is harder and harder for them to insulate themselves from the thoughts of other groups, especially with the internet and satellite TV. You almost have to build a compound these days.
And a place like IWU is too big to have such uniformity. Good grief, I'm not even sure that half of our students are even Wesleyans any more. Teaching students to memorize a set of beliefs and practices thus is ineffective preparation for the world. They need to know how to think and weigh things. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to bring thought leaders for them to engage and critique. You know, teach them to fish rather than giving them fish.
So you shouldn't think that my students blindly accept whatever I say on whatever topic. I encourage them to disagree or at least probe and question. I serve the truth and where I am wrong (and surely I am on many things even though I don't know it), I serve the truth by fostering the conflict of ideas in which we hope the truth will overall emerge the victor.
I'm about half way through and find it a very readable and attention holding book. I hope I can get my teenage step daughters to read it. If you want to know what the evangelical youth of the next generation look like, read this book.
Claiborne is a breath of fresh air. Yes, we all know that he represents one end of the spectrum. He reminds me of the Jesus People in Chicago in the 60's. I don't agree with all his positions.
But he is far more right than wrong, I firmly believe. It is a matter of the gospel and the message of Jesus in the gospels. Frankly, I can't even get into the mind of a Christian who gets angry about a guy like this one. What was the fuss at that other college that ended up cancelling him? Because he has dredlocks? Really! How can anyone with the heart of Christ find this man offensive if they've really listened to him?
I shouldn't assume you know his message. He is all about the simple life and giving away everything we have to give to those in need. He has a bit of the Barna perspective on the church, but we need to hear what he has to say.
There is a broader issue at work when people get upset at visitors like Claiborne... or at me for even thinking about voting for a Democrat. Tons of Christian colleges were founded in the late 1800's/early 1900's to withdraw from developments in broader Christian culture and its educational systems, to insulate our children and, to be honest, to indoctrinate them in our beliefs.
Most such groups did not have the clout or the power to carve a space for themselves at the broader educational table. These Christian groups were "group cultures" whose goal was not to teach critical thinking but to teach their children the beliefs and practices of their group.
There are still groups of this sort. But it is harder and harder for them to insulate themselves from the thoughts of other groups, especially with the internet and satellite TV. You almost have to build a compound these days.
And a place like IWU is too big to have such uniformity. Good grief, I'm not even sure that half of our students are even Wesleyans any more. Teaching students to memorize a set of beliefs and practices thus is ineffective preparation for the world. They need to know how to think and weigh things. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to bring thought leaders for them to engage and critique. You know, teach them to fish rather than giving them fish.
So you shouldn't think that my students blindly accept whatever I say on whatever topic. I encourage them to disagree or at least probe and question. I serve the truth and where I am wrong (and surely I am on many things even though I don't know it), I serve the truth by fostering the conflict of ideas in which we hope the truth will overall emerge the victor.
Monday Editorial: Far from a Lame Duck
Most presidencies are riding on fumes about now. I fully expected that at this time the Bush presidency would be rolling to its finish line in depression. I expected that if Bush ever had any moments of self-honesty, he would have to look back on the last eight years as the most colossal failure of a presidency, perhaps in US history.
Of course the current economic catastrophe has happened on Bush's watch. Although I don't have the knowledge to argue for it or prove it, my hunch is that we would not be where we are today if Gore or McCain had become president back in 2000, and probably not if it had been Kerry in 2004. Of course it is possible that some people wouldn't have experienced the same prosperity they have experienced these last 8 years either. I don't really know.
But one thing seems clear to me. The work Bush is doing right now may very well be the most important and enduring work of his presidency. There is a possible world in which it is what he does now that will define his presidency even more than the Iraq War or 9-11--and it may define his presidency very positively. For all my negative valuation of his time in office, he could actually tip the balance scales for me in the opposite direction.
In this respect, it is great that he is not up for re-election right now. He is able to do whatever he actually thinks is the best thing to do, rather than pander to the easily manipulated populace. His popularity is so low, he has no reputation to save. Everyone is ignoring him these days, even in his own party. They completely ignored him when the first bailout bill came around. They didn't even mention him at his own convention!
I for one am cheering him on. You go, Bush! Save the economic day for us and the world! I'm the forgiving sort.
Of course the current economic catastrophe has happened on Bush's watch. Although I don't have the knowledge to argue for it or prove it, my hunch is that we would not be where we are today if Gore or McCain had become president back in 2000, and probably not if it had been Kerry in 2004. Of course it is possible that some people wouldn't have experienced the same prosperity they have experienced these last 8 years either. I don't really know.
But one thing seems clear to me. The work Bush is doing right now may very well be the most important and enduring work of his presidency. There is a possible world in which it is what he does now that will define his presidency even more than the Iraq War or 9-11--and it may define his presidency very positively. For all my negative valuation of his time in office, he could actually tip the balance scales for me in the opposite direction.
In this respect, it is great that he is not up for re-election right now. He is able to do whatever he actually thinks is the best thing to do, rather than pander to the easily manipulated populace. His popularity is so low, he has no reputation to save. Everyone is ignoring him these days, even in his own party. They completely ignored him when the first bailout bill came around. They didn't even mention him at his own convention!
I for one am cheering him on. You go, Bush! Save the economic day for us and the world! I'm the forgiving sort.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Postmodern Youth Ministry?
Like I mentioned, I'm teaching a course for the next few weeks having to do with postmodernism and ministry. The textbooks are standard for the course in our Grad Min MA program, so I'm reading books chosen by someone else. One that is different from my usual fare is Postmodern Youth Ministry, by Tony Jones of emerging fame.
I've taught cohorts coming off this class and after reading Jone's first chapter, I better understand the kinds of allusive statements I've heard them make about the course. I just finished the first chapter. It is very suggestive and impressionistic to me--not inappropriate for a book about youth ministry in a postmodern world. But I can imagine that it has been a cross between confusing and irritating to many of our students.
Here are some of my thoughts. First, I think this book, as so much postmodern hype, confuses what I call "philosophical postmodernism" with what we might call "cultural postmodernism." By the way, this book was written pre-9-11 and pre-economic meltdown, so it seriously remains to be seen what youth culture will look like in the days to come. 9-11 provided a conservative backlash that at the very least affected what is emerging. And a post-economic crisis world may make the anti-materialist message of some moot.
My problem with discussions of the postmodern turn is 1) it essentializes postmodernism--it makes postmodernism into a thing when postmodernism is an anti-thing, 2) you can't live with an anti-thing. We must live as if our conceptions of reality are, on some level, fundamentally true. The end result of postmodernism is thus a humility toward knowledge and a massive sorting out of truths that work and truths that don't.
As a bit of a critique, I think it may be wrong to pin relativism on postmodernism, as so many do. Extreme postmodernism does away with all certainty, even individual certainty. Relativism at least claims certainty on the level of an individual or a group.
So Jones' first chapter gives us some impressions of changes. But I have serious questions about the claim that something completely different is "emerging," that we are at the point of a turn as big as the Reformation. There are some massive turns underway perhaps, but they are more concretely based than based on ideas.
And philosophical postmodernism's contribution to such changes are only transitional. It is an abyss it is significant to look into. But after we have taken a look and realized how little we know, then we will go back about our business of living and ministering, chastened and humbled, but still proceeding as if we know some things. Life is otherwise impossible.
I've taught cohorts coming off this class and after reading Jone's first chapter, I better understand the kinds of allusive statements I've heard them make about the course. I just finished the first chapter. It is very suggestive and impressionistic to me--not inappropriate for a book about youth ministry in a postmodern world. But I can imagine that it has been a cross between confusing and irritating to many of our students.
Here are some of my thoughts. First, I think this book, as so much postmodern hype, confuses what I call "philosophical postmodernism" with what we might call "cultural postmodernism." By the way, this book was written pre-9-11 and pre-economic meltdown, so it seriously remains to be seen what youth culture will look like in the days to come. 9-11 provided a conservative backlash that at the very least affected what is emerging. And a post-economic crisis world may make the anti-materialist message of some moot.
My problem with discussions of the postmodern turn is 1) it essentializes postmodernism--it makes postmodernism into a thing when postmodernism is an anti-thing, 2) you can't live with an anti-thing. We must live as if our conceptions of reality are, on some level, fundamentally true. The end result of postmodernism is thus a humility toward knowledge and a massive sorting out of truths that work and truths that don't.
As a bit of a critique, I think it may be wrong to pin relativism on postmodernism, as so many do. Extreme postmodernism does away with all certainty, even individual certainty. Relativism at least claims certainty on the level of an individual or a group.
So Jones' first chapter gives us some impressions of changes. But I have serious questions about the claim that something completely different is "emerging," that we are at the point of a turn as big as the Reformation. There are some massive turns underway perhaps, but they are more concretely based than based on ideas.
And philosophical postmodernism's contribution to such changes are only transitional. It is an abyss it is significant to look into. But after we have taken a look and realized how little we know, then we will go back about our business of living and ministering, chastened and humbled, but still proceeding as if we know some things. Life is otherwise impossible.
Sunday Explanatory Notes: Romans 1:1-15
My current intention is to post selected explanatory notes on Sundays and Wednesdays in relation to the two upper level Bible classes I am teaching this semester. For Tuesday, here are some comments in relation to Romans 1:1-15.
I can't aim to be complete--too much burying me. [comment on contract Ways Never Parted removed]
So much of this section I have just translated without comment. Please pardon occasional notes indicating blanks I would want to fill in if I ever published these notes.
__________
1:1 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called [to be an] apostle, separated for the gospel of God,
The Pauline authorship of Romans is not questioned. No cowriter is mentioned, although one Tertius mentions himself in 16:22 as the writer of at least that chapter.
***
Verse 3 will make it clear that the primary content of the "good news" relates to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised king and Lord.
1:2 ... which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
The early Christians scoured the Old Testament looking for explanations and information relative to the kind of messiahship that Jesus turned out to have. They were not, after all, expecting the Messiah to die on a cross! Nor is it clear that they were expecting Jesus to come back from the dead. Very early on we can imagine that they found the host of passages in the Old Testament that they now understood to be prophecies about Jesus and the manner of his messiahship.
What were some of these passages? Psalm 110:1, Psalm 22, ***
1:3 ... concerning His Son, who came from the seed of David, according to the flesh,
It is here that Paul makes clear what the content of the gospel is. It is the good news about the Son of God, the promised king. A "gospel" in the Roman world was an announcement of extraordinarily good news, such as the birth of a successor to the throne or a key victory against the enemies of the Romans. The good news of God is that "our God reigns" and that He reigns through the kingship of Jesus Christ.
Verse 3 gives the human part of the resume of the Son of God. In terms of the Old Testament, the Messiah would be a descendant of David, in the royal line. It is, after all, the promise of a continued Davidic king that serves as the ultimate basis for Jewish messianic expectation in the first place. 2 Samuel 7:14 tells of God saying to David about Solomon: "I will be his Father; and he will be my son... ***.
Old Testament passages such as these (e.g., Ps. 2; perhaps even Isa. 12:1; 10*) looked to a human successor to David's throne, a descendant of David "according to the flesh." It is thus no surprise that there were other individuals in this period who either tauted themselves or were promoted as the Messiah. The New Testament understanding of the Messiah is thus a significant upgrade from what we might consider the average Jewish expectation of the time.
1:4 ... [and] was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness, on the basis of his resurrection from the dead,
These two verses have a symmetry to them, and they stand somewhat loosely to the flow of Paul's thought. They are introduced with a characteristic "who" and have somewhat unique phraseology for Paul, like "Spirit of holiness" instead of "Holy Spirit." For this reason, a good number of scholars suggest that Paul is quoting a common Christian expression of faith here, rather than simply writing his own words.
This second half of the "creed," or whatever it might have been, points to a much greater understanding of Jesus than other messianic expectation. "According to the flesh," Jesus had the qualifications to be Messiah because he was of the line of David. But the actual "appointment" of Jesus to divine Sonship--at least "in power"--was at the point of his resurrection. This timing fits with a host of other New Testament passages that most meaningfully identify Jesus as the Son of God and Lord at the point of his resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:35; 13:33; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:5). In particular, they present Christ's exaltation to God's right hand as a kind of enthronement as cosmic king over all the creation.
... Jesus Christ, our Lord,
The person about which all these things apply is none other than Jesus, a man who had only recently walked the earth, an astounding claim. This Jesus is Christ, Messiah, king of Israel. And he is "our Lord," a term that occasionally has overtones of YHWH in the Old Testament for Paul.
1:5 ... through whom we have received grace and apostleship, leading to the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles in relation to his name,
As Paul will say in Romans 15*, he did not see himself as apostle to Jew and Gentile equally. He is the apostle to the Gentiles, sent with a commission by God to bring them the good news of the reign of God in Christ. The one "funding" his mission is none other than Jesus the Lord, who has graced Paul to go on this ambassadorial journey.
The desired outcome of the mission is the obedience of the Gentiles, an affirmation of the name of Jesus as the king. Faith here seems to be closely related to obedience. Faith is virtually equated with obedience to the gospel.
1:6 ... among whom you are also called by Jesus Christ,
The implication of this statement would thus seem to be that the audience is primarily Gentile in composition. The audience is among all the Gentiles whose faith in his lordship Jesus is seeking. The strongest argument for a "mixed" audience of both Jew and Gentile is Romans 16, which includes several Jews. However, the text of Romans itself points toward a predominantly Gentile audience.
1:7 ... to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called [as] holy ones,
This is the second part of the opening "prescript." The opening of an ancient letter was usually quite brief: X to Y, greetings. Paul uncharacteristically expands his prescripts will all sorts of qualifying statements and expressions.
So this is the "to Y" part of the prescript. *** placing of Romans in Paul's ministry
... grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is the "greetings" part. *** Paul's typical greeting.
1:8 First, I am giving thanks to my God through Jesus Christ about you all, because your faith is being reported in the whole world.
Following the prescript of an ancient letter, there was characteristically a "thanksgiving" section where the author gave thanks to some god. Paul's letters also characteristically either give thanks to God or launch into a blessing of God after the prescript, with the notable exception of Galatians. The thanksgiving of Romans seems to run from verse 8 to 15.
When was the church founded, Claudius and AD49, death of Nero, AD54 ***
1:9-10 For God is my witness--whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel about His Son, as I constantly am making mention of you--[that I am] always in my prayers asking if somehow at last I will find good passage in the will of God to come to you.
1:11-12 For I long to see you that I might impart some spiritual gift to you so that you might be strengthened. And this is for the mutual encouragement among you through the faith in one another, both your [faith] and mine.
1:13 Now I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that I have often purposed to come to you, and I was hindered until the present time,
It is interesting to see that Paul had hoped to visit Rome sooner than he did. We can wonder when and what sorts of things hindered him. ***
... so that I might have some fruit among you, just as [I have] also [had] among the other Gentiles.
Here is yet another indication that the audience is predominantly Gentile or at least that it is the Gentile Christian constituency at Rome to which Paul is predominantly writing. We must thus be very careful to hear Romans in this way, as a letter directed primarily at Gentiles. It is all too easy--even for scholars--to take their eye off reading Romans inductively to inserting all kinds of extraneous presuppositions into their reading of a biblical text.
1:14 Both to Greeks and barbarians, both to the wise and the ignorant, I am a debtor,
Again, we notice that Paul does not divide his mission up into Jews and Gentiles here but into types of Gentiles: civilized and uncivilized. ***
1:15 ... so my purpose is also to proclaim the gospel to you who are at Rome.
Again, Paul includes the audience within the stream of Gentiles that he has been discussing in the thanksgiving section of Romans. With this verse, we might say that the thanksgiving section comes to an end.
I can't aim to be complete--too much burying me. [comment on contract Ways Never Parted removed]
So much of this section I have just translated without comment. Please pardon occasional notes indicating blanks I would want to fill in if I ever published these notes.
__________
1:1 Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called [to be an] apostle, separated for the gospel of God,
The Pauline authorship of Romans is not questioned. No cowriter is mentioned, although one Tertius mentions himself in 16:22 as the writer of at least that chapter.
***
Verse 3 will make it clear that the primary content of the "good news" relates to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised king and Lord.
1:2 ... which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
The early Christians scoured the Old Testament looking for explanations and information relative to the kind of messiahship that Jesus turned out to have. They were not, after all, expecting the Messiah to die on a cross! Nor is it clear that they were expecting Jesus to come back from the dead. Very early on we can imagine that they found the host of passages in the Old Testament that they now understood to be prophecies about Jesus and the manner of his messiahship.
What were some of these passages? Psalm 110:1, Psalm 22, ***
1:3 ... concerning His Son, who came from the seed of David, according to the flesh,
It is here that Paul makes clear what the content of the gospel is. It is the good news about the Son of God, the promised king. A "gospel" in the Roman world was an announcement of extraordinarily good news, such as the birth of a successor to the throne or a key victory against the enemies of the Romans. The good news of God is that "our God reigns" and that He reigns through the kingship of Jesus Christ.
Verse 3 gives the human part of the resume of the Son of God. In terms of the Old Testament, the Messiah would be a descendant of David, in the royal line. It is, after all, the promise of a continued Davidic king that serves as the ultimate basis for Jewish messianic expectation in the first place. 2 Samuel 7:14 tells of God saying to David about Solomon: "I will be his Father; and he will be my son... ***.
Old Testament passages such as these (e.g., Ps. 2; perhaps even Isa. 12:1; 10*) looked to a human successor to David's throne, a descendant of David "according to the flesh." It is thus no surprise that there were other individuals in this period who either tauted themselves or were promoted as the Messiah. The New Testament understanding of the Messiah is thus a significant upgrade from what we might consider the average Jewish expectation of the time.
1:4 ... [and] was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness, on the basis of his resurrection from the dead,
These two verses have a symmetry to them, and they stand somewhat loosely to the flow of Paul's thought. They are introduced with a characteristic "who" and have somewhat unique phraseology for Paul, like "Spirit of holiness" instead of "Holy Spirit." For this reason, a good number of scholars suggest that Paul is quoting a common Christian expression of faith here, rather than simply writing his own words.
This second half of the "creed," or whatever it might have been, points to a much greater understanding of Jesus than other messianic expectation. "According to the flesh," Jesus had the qualifications to be Messiah because he was of the line of David. But the actual "appointment" of Jesus to divine Sonship--at least "in power"--was at the point of his resurrection. This timing fits with a host of other New Testament passages that most meaningfully identify Jesus as the Son of God and Lord at the point of his resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:35; 13:33; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:5). In particular, they present Christ's exaltation to God's right hand as a kind of enthronement as cosmic king over all the creation.
... Jesus Christ, our Lord,
The person about which all these things apply is none other than Jesus, a man who had only recently walked the earth, an astounding claim. This Jesus is Christ, Messiah, king of Israel. And he is "our Lord," a term that occasionally has overtones of YHWH in the Old Testament for Paul.
1:5 ... through whom we have received grace and apostleship, leading to the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles in relation to his name,
As Paul will say in Romans 15*, he did not see himself as apostle to Jew and Gentile equally. He is the apostle to the Gentiles, sent with a commission by God to bring them the good news of the reign of God in Christ. The one "funding" his mission is none other than Jesus the Lord, who has graced Paul to go on this ambassadorial journey.
The desired outcome of the mission is the obedience of the Gentiles, an affirmation of the name of Jesus as the king. Faith here seems to be closely related to obedience. Faith is virtually equated with obedience to the gospel.
1:6 ... among whom you are also called by Jesus Christ,
The implication of this statement would thus seem to be that the audience is primarily Gentile in composition. The audience is among all the Gentiles whose faith in his lordship Jesus is seeking. The strongest argument for a "mixed" audience of both Jew and Gentile is Romans 16, which includes several Jews. However, the text of Romans itself points toward a predominantly Gentile audience.
1:7 ... to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called [as] holy ones,
This is the second part of the opening "prescript." The opening of an ancient letter was usually quite brief: X to Y, greetings. Paul uncharacteristically expands his prescripts will all sorts of qualifying statements and expressions.
So this is the "to Y" part of the prescript. *** placing of Romans in Paul's ministry
... grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is the "greetings" part. *** Paul's typical greeting.
1:8 First, I am giving thanks to my God through Jesus Christ about you all, because your faith is being reported in the whole world.
Following the prescript of an ancient letter, there was characteristically a "thanksgiving" section where the author gave thanks to some god. Paul's letters also characteristically either give thanks to God or launch into a blessing of God after the prescript, with the notable exception of Galatians. The thanksgiving of Romans seems to run from verse 8 to 15.
When was the church founded, Claudius and AD49, death of Nero, AD54 ***
1:9-10 For God is my witness--whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel about His Son, as I constantly am making mention of you--[that I am] always in my prayers asking if somehow at last I will find good passage in the will of God to come to you.
1:11-12 For I long to see you that I might impart some spiritual gift to you so that you might be strengthened. And this is for the mutual encouragement among you through the faith in one another, both your [faith] and mine.
1:13 Now I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that I have often purposed to come to you, and I was hindered until the present time,
It is interesting to see that Paul had hoped to visit Rome sooner than he did. We can wonder when and what sorts of things hindered him. ***
... so that I might have some fruit among you, just as [I have] also [had] among the other Gentiles.
Here is yet another indication that the audience is predominantly Gentile or at least that it is the Gentile Christian constituency at Rome to which Paul is predominantly writing. We must thus be very careful to hear Romans in this way, as a letter directed primarily at Gentiles. It is all too easy--even for scholars--to take their eye off reading Romans inductively to inserting all kinds of extraneous presuppositions into their reading of a biblical text.
1:14 Both to Greeks and barbarians, both to the wise and the ignorant, I am a debtor,
Again, we notice that Paul does not divide his mission up into Jews and Gentiles here but into types of Gentiles: civilized and uncivilized. ***
1:15 ... so my purpose is also to proclaim the gospel to you who are at Rome.
Again, Paul includes the audience within the stream of Gentiles that he has been discussing in the thanksgiving section of Romans. With this verse, we might say that the thanksgiving section comes to an end.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Saturday Sources: Sirach
The bulk of Sirach was written in Hebrew around 200BC, then translated into Greek in Egypt by the author's grandson in the late second century BC (author of Prologue). Many think Jesus ben Sira, the author, might have been a scribe. It's too early to pin to one of the later, well known Jewish groups. It's theology would come closest to the Sadducees at least in respect to the afterlife, but it's hard to know.
Here are excerpts I think are particularly relevant to New Testament study. Quotations are taken from the NRSV. I have put in bold items of particular interest.
________
From Prologue: Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them, and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom. Now, those who read the scriptures must not only understand them, but must also as lovers of learning be able through the spoken and written word help the outsiders. So my grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law.
1:1, 4, 11-14
All wisdom is from the Lord and with him it remains forever... Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity...
The fear of the Lord is glory and exultation,
and gladness and a crown of rejoicing.
The fear of the Lord delights the heart,
and gives gladness and joy and long life.
Those who fear the Lord will have a happy end;
on the day of their death they will be blessed.
To fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;
she is created with the faithful in the womb.
3:1-4, 12, 14-15
Listen to me your father, O children:
act accordingly, that you may be kept in safety.
For the Lord honors a father above his children,
and he confirms a mother's right over her children.
Those who honor their father atone for sins,
and those who respect their mother are like those who lay up treasure...
My child, help your father in his old age,
and do not grieve him as long as he lives...
For kindness to a father will not be forgotten,
and will be credited to you against your sins;
In the day of your distress it will be remembered in your favor;
like frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away...
3:30
As water extinguishes a blazing fire,
so almsgiving atones for sin.
5:9-11, 13-14
Do not winnow in every wind,
or follow every path.
Stand firm for what you know,
and let your speech be consistent.
Be quick to hear,
but deliberate in answering...
Honor and dishonor come from speaking,
and the tongue of mortals may be their downfall.
Do not be called double-tongued
and do not lay traps with your tongue...
6:18-19, 23-26, 28-30
My child, from your youth choose discipline,
and when you have gray hair you will still find wisdom.
Come to her like one who plows and sows,
and wait for her good harvest.
For when you cultivate her you will toil but little,
and soon you will eat of her produce...
Listen, my child, and accept my judgment;
do not reject my counsel.
Put your feet into her fetters,
and your neck into her collar.
Bend your shoulders and carry her,
and do not fret under her bonds.
Come to her with all your soul,
and keep her ways with all your might...
For at last you will find the rest she gives,
and she will be changed into joy for you.
Then her fetters will become for you a strong defense,
and her collar a glorious robe.
Her yoke is a golden ornament,
and her bonds a purple cord.
7:36; 8:5
In all you do, remember the end of your life,
and then you will never sin.
Do not reproach one who is turning away from sin;
remember that we all deserve punishment.
11:14, 21, 25-28
Good things and bad, life and death, poverty and wealth, come from the Lord...
Do not wonder at the works of a sinner,
but trust in the Lord and keep at your job;
for it is easy in the sight of the Lord to make the poor rich suddenly, in an instant...
In the day of prosperity, adversity is forgotten,
and in the day of adversity, prosperity is not remembered.
For it is easy for the Lord on the day of death
to reward individuals according to their conduct.
An hour's misery makes one forget past delights,
and at the close of one's life one's deeds are revealed.
Call no one happy before his death;
by how he ends, a person becomes known.
14:12-19
Remember that death does not tarry,
and the decree of Hades has not been shown to you.
Do good to friends before you die,
and reach out and give to them as much as you can.
Do not deprive yourself of a day's enjoyment;
do not let your share of desired good pass by you.
Will you not leave the fruit of your labors to another,
and what you acquired by toil to be divided by lot?
Give, and take, and indulge yourself,
because in Hades one cannot look for luxury.
All living beings become old like a garment,
for the decree from of old is, "You must die!"
Like abundant leaves on a spreading tree
that sheds some and puts forth others,
so are the generations of flesh and blood;
one dies and another is born.
Every work decays and ceases to exist,
and the one who made it will pass away with it.
15:11-20
Do not say, "It was the Lord's doing that I fell away";
for he does not do what he hates.
Do not say, "It was he who led me astray";
for he has no need of the sinful.
The Lord hates all abominations;
such things are not loved by those who fear him.
It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.
17:1-3, 17, 27-28
The Lord created human beings out of earth,
and makes them return to it again.
He gave them a fixed number of days,
but granted them authority over everything on the earth.
He endowed them with strength like his own,
and made them in his own image...
He appointed a ruler for every nation,
but Israel is the Lord's own portion...
Who will sing praises to the Most High in Hades
in place of the living who give thanks?
From the dead, as from one who does not exist,
thanksgiving has ceased.
24:1-12, 21-23
Wisdom praises herself,
and tells of her glory in the midst of the people.
In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth,
and in the presence of his hosts she tells of her glory:
"I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
and covered the earth like a mist.
I dwelt in the highest heavens,
and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
Alone I compassed the vault of heaven
and traversed the depths of the abyss.
Over waves of the sea, over all the earth,
and over every people and nation I have held sway.
Among all these I sought a resting place;
in whose territory should I abide?
"Then the Creator of all things gave me a command,
and my Creator chose the place for my tent.
He said, 'Make your dwelling in Jacob,
and in Israel receive your inheritance.'
Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me,
and for all the ages I shall not cease to be.
In the holy tent I ministered before him,
and so I was established in Zion.
Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place
and in Jerusalem was my domain.
I took root in an honored people,
in the portion of the Lord, his heritage...
Those who eat of me will hunger for more,
and those who drink of me will thirst for more.
Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame,
and those who work with me will not sin."
All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God.
25:16, 19, 23-24; 26:1-2
I would rather live with a lion and a dragon
than live with an evil woman...
Any iniquity is small compared to a woman's iniquity...
Dejected mind, gloomy face,
and wounded heart come from an evil wife.
Drooping hands and weak knees
come from the wife who does not make her husband happy.
From a woman sin had its beginning,
and because of her we all die...
Happy is the husband of a good wife;
the number of his days will be doubled.
A loyal wife brings joy to her husband,
and he will complete his years in peace.
26:29
A merchant can hardly keep from wrongdoing,
nor is a tradesman innocent of sin.
28:1-5
The vengeful will face the Lord's vengeance,
for he keeps a strict account of their sins.
Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done,
and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray.
Does anyone harbor anger against another,
and expect healing from the Lord?
If one has no mercy toward another like himself,
can he then seek pardon for his own sins?
If a mere mortal harbors wrath,
who will make an atoning sacrifice for his sins?
33:13
Like clay in the hand of the potter,
to be molded as he pleases,
so all are in the hand of their Maker,
to be given whatever he decides.
33:26-29
Set your slave to work, and you will find rest;
leave his hands idle, and he will seek liberty.
Yoke and thong will bow the neck,
and for a wicked slave there are racks and tortures.
Put him to work, in order that he may not be idle,
for idleness teaches much evil.
34:22-23, 31
If one sacrifices ill-gotten goods,
the offering is blemished;
the gifts of the lawless are not acceptable.
The Most High is not pleased with the offerings of the ungodly,
nor for a multitude of sacrifices does he forgive sins...
So if one fasts for his sins,
and goes again and does the same things,
who will listen to his prayer...
35:15-17, 21-23
... the Lord is the judge,
and with him there is no partiality.
He will not show partiality to the poor;
but he will listen to the prayer of one who is wronged.
He will not ignore the supplication of the orphan,
or the widow when she pours out her complaint...
The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds,
and it will not rest until it reaches its goal;
It will not desist until the Most High responds
and does justice for the righteous and executes judgment.
Indeed the Lord will not delay,
and like a warrior will not be patient
until he crushes the loins of the unmerciful
and repays vengeance on the nations;
42:9-14
A daughter is a secret anxiety to her father,
and worry over her robs him of sleep;
when she is young, for fear she may not marry,
or if married, for fear she may be disliked;
while a virgin, for fear she may be seduced
and become pregnant in her father's house;
or having a husband, for fear she may go astray,
or, though married, for fear she may be barren.
Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
or she may make you a laughingstock to your enemies,
a byword in the city and the assembly of the people
and put you to shame in public gatherings.
See that there is no lattice in her room,
no spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.
Do not let her parade her beauty before any man,
or spend her time among married women;
for from garments comes the moth,
and from a woman comes woman's wickedness.
Better is the wickedness of a man
than a woman who does good;
It is a woman who brings shame and disgrace.
43:26
Because of him [God] each of his messengers succeeds,
and by his word all things hold together.
44:23-45:2, 6-7, 13-14
From his [Jacob's] descendants the Lord brought forth a godly man,
who found favor in the sight of all
and was beloved by God and people,
Moses, whose memory is blessed.
He made him equal in glory to the holy ones,
and made him great, to the terror of his enemies...
He [the Lord] exalted Aaron, a holy man like Moses
who was his brother, of the tribe of Levi.
He made an everlasting covenant with him,
and gave him the priesthood of the people...
His sacrifices shall be wholly burned
twice every day continually.
51:23-28
Draw near to me, you who are uneducated,
and lodge in the house of instruction.
Why do you say you are lacking in these things,
and why do you endure such great thirst?
I opened my mouth and said,
Acquire wisdom for yourselves without money.
Put your neck under her yoke,
and let your souls receive instruction;
it is to be found close by.
See with your own eyes that I have labored but little
and found for myself much serenity.
Hear but a little of my instruction,
and through me you will acquire silver and gold.
Here are excerpts I think are particularly relevant to New Testament study. Quotations are taken from the NRSV. I have put in bold items of particular interest.
________
From Prologue: Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them, and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom. Now, those who read the scriptures must not only understand them, but must also as lovers of learning be able through the spoken and written word help the outsiders. So my grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law.
1:1, 4, 11-14
All wisdom is from the Lord and with him it remains forever... Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity...
The fear of the Lord is glory and exultation,
and gladness and a crown of rejoicing.
The fear of the Lord delights the heart,
and gives gladness and joy and long life.
Those who fear the Lord will have a happy end;
on the day of their death they will be blessed.
To fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;
she is created with the faithful in the womb.
3:1-4, 12, 14-15
Listen to me your father, O children:
act accordingly, that you may be kept in safety.
For the Lord honors a father above his children,
and he confirms a mother's right over her children.
Those who honor their father atone for sins,
and those who respect their mother are like those who lay up treasure...
My child, help your father in his old age,
and do not grieve him as long as he lives...
For kindness to a father will not be forgotten,
and will be credited to you against your sins;
In the day of your distress it will be remembered in your favor;
like frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away...
3:30
As water extinguishes a blazing fire,
so almsgiving atones for sin.
5:9-11, 13-14
Do not winnow in every wind,
or follow every path.
Stand firm for what you know,
and let your speech be consistent.
Be quick to hear,
but deliberate in answering...
Honor and dishonor come from speaking,
and the tongue of mortals may be their downfall.
Do not be called double-tongued
and do not lay traps with your tongue...
6:18-19, 23-26, 28-30
My child, from your youth choose discipline,
and when you have gray hair you will still find wisdom.
Come to her like one who plows and sows,
and wait for her good harvest.
For when you cultivate her you will toil but little,
and soon you will eat of her produce...
Listen, my child, and accept my judgment;
do not reject my counsel.
Put your feet into her fetters,
and your neck into her collar.
Bend your shoulders and carry her,
and do not fret under her bonds.
Come to her with all your soul,
and keep her ways with all your might...
For at last you will find the rest she gives,
and she will be changed into joy for you.
Then her fetters will become for you a strong defense,
and her collar a glorious robe.
Her yoke is a golden ornament,
and her bonds a purple cord.
7:36; 8:5
In all you do, remember the end of your life,
and then you will never sin.
Do not reproach one who is turning away from sin;
remember that we all deserve punishment.
11:14, 21, 25-28
Good things and bad, life and death, poverty and wealth, come from the Lord...
Do not wonder at the works of a sinner,
but trust in the Lord and keep at your job;
for it is easy in the sight of the Lord to make the poor rich suddenly, in an instant...
In the day of prosperity, adversity is forgotten,
and in the day of adversity, prosperity is not remembered.
For it is easy for the Lord on the day of death
to reward individuals according to their conduct.
An hour's misery makes one forget past delights,
and at the close of one's life one's deeds are revealed.
Call no one happy before his death;
by how he ends, a person becomes known.
14:12-19
Remember that death does not tarry,
and the decree of Hades has not been shown to you.
Do good to friends before you die,
and reach out and give to them as much as you can.
Do not deprive yourself of a day's enjoyment;
do not let your share of desired good pass by you.
Will you not leave the fruit of your labors to another,
and what you acquired by toil to be divided by lot?
Give, and take, and indulge yourself,
because in Hades one cannot look for luxury.
All living beings become old like a garment,
for the decree from of old is, "You must die!"
Like abundant leaves on a spreading tree
that sheds some and puts forth others,
so are the generations of flesh and blood;
one dies and another is born.
Every work decays and ceases to exist,
and the one who made it will pass away with it.
15:11-20
Do not say, "It was the Lord's doing that I fell away";
for he does not do what he hates.
Do not say, "It was he who led me astray";
for he has no need of the sinful.
The Lord hates all abominations;
such things are not loved by those who fear him.
It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.
17:1-3, 17, 27-28
The Lord created human beings out of earth,
and makes them return to it again.
He gave them a fixed number of days,
but granted them authority over everything on the earth.
He endowed them with strength like his own,
and made them in his own image...
He appointed a ruler for every nation,
but Israel is the Lord's own portion...
Who will sing praises to the Most High in Hades
in place of the living who give thanks?
From the dead, as from one who does not exist,
thanksgiving has ceased.
24:1-12, 21-23
Wisdom praises herself,
and tells of her glory in the midst of the people.
In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth,
and in the presence of his hosts she tells of her glory:
"I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
and covered the earth like a mist.
I dwelt in the highest heavens,
and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
Alone I compassed the vault of heaven
and traversed the depths of the abyss.
Over waves of the sea, over all the earth,
and over every people and nation I have held sway.
Among all these I sought a resting place;
in whose territory should I abide?
"Then the Creator of all things gave me a command,
and my Creator chose the place for my tent.
He said, 'Make your dwelling in Jacob,
and in Israel receive your inheritance.'
Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me,
and for all the ages I shall not cease to be.
In the holy tent I ministered before him,
and so I was established in Zion.
Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place
and in Jerusalem was my domain.
I took root in an honored people,
in the portion of the Lord, his heritage...
Those who eat of me will hunger for more,
and those who drink of me will thirst for more.
Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame,
and those who work with me will not sin."
All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God.
25:16, 19, 23-24; 26:1-2
I would rather live with a lion and a dragon
than live with an evil woman...
Any iniquity is small compared to a woman's iniquity...
Dejected mind, gloomy face,
and wounded heart come from an evil wife.
Drooping hands and weak knees
come from the wife who does not make her husband happy.
From a woman sin had its beginning,
and because of her we all die...
Happy is the husband of a good wife;
the number of his days will be doubled.
A loyal wife brings joy to her husband,
and he will complete his years in peace.
26:29
A merchant can hardly keep from wrongdoing,
nor is a tradesman innocent of sin.
28:1-5
The vengeful will face the Lord's vengeance,
for he keeps a strict account of their sins.
Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done,
and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray.
Does anyone harbor anger against another,
and expect healing from the Lord?
If one has no mercy toward another like himself,
can he then seek pardon for his own sins?
If a mere mortal harbors wrath,
who will make an atoning sacrifice for his sins?
33:13
Like clay in the hand of the potter,
to be molded as he pleases,
so all are in the hand of their Maker,
to be given whatever he decides.
33:26-29
Set your slave to work, and you will find rest;
leave his hands idle, and he will seek liberty.
Yoke and thong will bow the neck,
and for a wicked slave there are racks and tortures.
Put him to work, in order that he may not be idle,
for idleness teaches much evil.
34:22-23, 31
If one sacrifices ill-gotten goods,
the offering is blemished;
the gifts of the lawless are not acceptable.
The Most High is not pleased with the offerings of the ungodly,
nor for a multitude of sacrifices does he forgive sins...
So if one fasts for his sins,
and goes again and does the same things,
who will listen to his prayer...
35:15-17, 21-23
... the Lord is the judge,
and with him there is no partiality.
He will not show partiality to the poor;
but he will listen to the prayer of one who is wronged.
He will not ignore the supplication of the orphan,
or the widow when she pours out her complaint...
The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds,
and it will not rest until it reaches its goal;
It will not desist until the Most High responds
and does justice for the righteous and executes judgment.
Indeed the Lord will not delay,
and like a warrior will not be patient
until he crushes the loins of the unmerciful
and repays vengeance on the nations;
42:9-14
A daughter is a secret anxiety to her father,
and worry over her robs him of sleep;
when she is young, for fear she may not marry,
or if married, for fear she may be disliked;
while a virgin, for fear she may be seduced
and become pregnant in her father's house;
or having a husband, for fear she may go astray,
or, though married, for fear she may be barren.
Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
or she may make you a laughingstock to your enemies,
a byword in the city and the assembly of the people
and put you to shame in public gatherings.
See that there is no lattice in her room,
no spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.
Do not let her parade her beauty before any man,
or spend her time among married women;
for from garments comes the moth,
and from a woman comes woman's wickedness.
Better is the wickedness of a man
than a woman who does good;
It is a woman who brings shame and disgrace.
43:26
Because of him [God] each of his messengers succeeds,
and by his word all things hold together.
44:23-45:2, 6-7, 13-14
From his [Jacob's] descendants the Lord brought forth a godly man,
who found favor in the sight of all
and was beloved by God and people,
Moses, whose memory is blessed.
He made him equal in glory to the holy ones,
and made him great, to the terror of his enemies...
He [the Lord] exalted Aaron, a holy man like Moses
who was his brother, of the tribe of Levi.
He made an everlasting covenant with him,
and gave him the priesthood of the people...
His sacrifices shall be wholly burned
twice every day continually.
51:23-28
Draw near to me, you who are uneducated,
and lodge in the house of instruction.
Why do you say you are lacking in these things,
and why do you endure such great thirst?
I opened my mouth and said,
Acquire wisdom for yourselves without money.
Put your neck under her yoke,
and let your souls receive instruction;
it is to be found close by.
See with your own eyes that I have labored but little
and found for myself much serenity.
Hear but a little of my instruction,
and through me you will acquire silver and gold.
Now That's the McCain I Admire
I heard a glimpse of the old McCain yesterday, the one I wanted back in 2000. I mentioned yesterday that his crowds are getting more and more psycho. I suspect that works in McCain's advantage and no doubt some of his advisors are telling him to run with it.
But yesterday he corrected a couple of people in the town hall meetings. One was a woman who said something about Obama being Arab (the official representative from the "I'm a stupid American" club, no doubt). Another man expressed deep fear of Obama as a person.
McCain stepped up to the plate both times, "No, sir, Obama is a decent family man. You have nothing to fear if he becomes president."
Good for you, John McCain!
But yesterday he corrected a couple of people in the town hall meetings. One was a woman who said something about Obama being Arab (the official representative from the "I'm a stupid American" club, no doubt). Another man expressed deep fear of Obama as a person.
McCain stepped up to the plate both times, "No, sir, Obama is a decent family man. You have nothing to fear if he becomes president."
Good for you, John McCain!
Friday, October 10, 2008
The End of American Style Capitalism?
It's a very scary world right now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27112481/
I may be wrong but my hunch is that the silver lining in crises like this is the opportunity to make important changes that people don't let you make when everything is hunky dorie (like passing anti-trust laws). Whatever those changes are, I hope some smart and objective people make them.
You all already know that I think an Obama is more likely to make the right sorts of changes than McCain. I think on economics McCain just says whatever his advisors tell him to say, while Obama is smart enough in this category actually to think it through himself with his economic advisors. If significant changes are needed, I just see an Obama more likely to make them than "More of the Same McCain."
My musings and hunches... not even my positions because I'm not qualified.
P.S. Obviously Eastern Europe, Cuba, and the Soviet Union have a lot to say about the likely success of a communistic system. But right about now Karl Marx's thoughts on the instability of unbridled capitalism don't look too stupid either.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27112481/
I may be wrong but my hunch is that the silver lining in crises like this is the opportunity to make important changes that people don't let you make when everything is hunky dorie (like passing anti-trust laws). Whatever those changes are, I hope some smart and objective people make them.
You all already know that I think an Obama is more likely to make the right sorts of changes than McCain. I think on economics McCain just says whatever his advisors tell him to say, while Obama is smart enough in this category actually to think it through himself with his economic advisors. If significant changes are needed, I just see an Obama more likely to make them than "More of the Same McCain."
My musings and hunches... not even my positions because I'm not qualified.
P.S. Obviously Eastern Europe, Cuba, and the Soviet Union have a lot to say about the likely success of a communistic system. But right about now Karl Marx's thoughts on the instability of unbridled capitalism don't look too stupid either.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Why So Much Anti-Obama Anger?
I'm sure some of you have seen the clips of people in the McCain's audience in Waukesha, Wisconsin who are angry that Obama is ahead. They're pleading in great anger for McCain to do something about it. This turn in the McCain campaign is scary because it gets at a fundamental irrationality that I could see leading someone eventually to try to assassinate Obama.
What's up with that? Don't give me irrational ad hominem lines about Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, or ACORN. I don't believe these are the real reasons anyone doesn't like Obama. They are the age old "attack the person" when you can't win on the issues. McCain's erratic, "throw anything I can think of in hopes that something sticks," is embarrassing and disgraceful--and it's far from just the "liberals" who have noticed (e.g., George Will).
So why the anger? Here are some of my suggestions?
1. Don't want a black in charge.
I've heard the interviews. This is major. There are an aweful lot of white people who will vote against Obama for no other real reason (regardless of whatever blather comes out of their mouths) than the fact that he's black. The Muslim accusation is really a mask for people who don't want to admit they don't like the fact that Obama is black.
This campaign has exposed the deep racism that continues to exist among vast numbers of Americans. This is also one of the reasons why Obama doesn't fair as well among older people as he does among younger people. Older Americans are far more likely to have more racism deep in their skulls than younger ones.
2. Spoiled "divine right" conservatives.
The combination of 9-11 with the prevailing of the Christian right in the Bush administration has allowed a lot of people to have the impression that with Bush, God had finally prevailed in America. After exploiting the power they have had these eight years to advance their agendas, agendas they identify with God's agendas, they are shocked and indignant that Satan, in this case Obama, may very well soon take their righteous power away.
But I doubt very seriously that the Bush administration was a taste of the kingdom of God. A better moral to this story is to be kind to others when you are in power and just maybe they will be kind to you when they're in power.
What's up with that? Don't give me irrational ad hominem lines about Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, or ACORN. I don't believe these are the real reasons anyone doesn't like Obama. They are the age old "attack the person" when you can't win on the issues. McCain's erratic, "throw anything I can think of in hopes that something sticks," is embarrassing and disgraceful--and it's far from just the "liberals" who have noticed (e.g., George Will).
So why the anger? Here are some of my suggestions?
1. Don't want a black in charge.
I've heard the interviews. This is major. There are an aweful lot of white people who will vote against Obama for no other real reason (regardless of whatever blather comes out of their mouths) than the fact that he's black. The Muslim accusation is really a mask for people who don't want to admit they don't like the fact that Obama is black.
This campaign has exposed the deep racism that continues to exist among vast numbers of Americans. This is also one of the reasons why Obama doesn't fair as well among older people as he does among younger people. Older Americans are far more likely to have more racism deep in their skulls than younger ones.
2. Spoiled "divine right" conservatives.
The combination of 9-11 with the prevailing of the Christian right in the Bush administration has allowed a lot of people to have the impression that with Bush, God had finally prevailed in America. After exploiting the power they have had these eight years to advance their agendas, agendas they identify with God's agendas, they are shocked and indignant that Satan, in this case Obama, may very well soon take their righteous power away.
But I doubt very seriously that the Bush administration was a taste of the kingdom of God. A better moral to this story is to be kind to others when you are in power and just maybe they will be kind to you when they're in power.
Ways to Govern Society 1: Theocracy
A blip in the philosophy textbook saga...
13.1 Ways to Govern Society
If we look at societies from the standpoint of who is in charge, certain basic options emerge to structure the governance of a group of people. We can find examples of each option in history, as well as of "philosophers" who have favored each option. Over the years different societies have learned to combine these options to maximize the benefits of each.
A very old option, and one that we see in play in various parts of the world today, is that of a theocracy. In a theocracy, God or gods are said to rule. We like to think of ancient Israel as somewhat of a theocracy from Moses to the time Israel got a king. John Calvin ran the city of Geneva in the 1500's something like a theocracy. When Muslim groups strive to bring their countries under sharia law, they are striving toward a relatively theocratic form of governance.
The problem with a theocracy, of course, is that the gods rarely came down to govern in person in ancient India, and we find no record of a theophany in Calvin's Geneva. Theocracies almost always turn out to be rule by priests or by central religious figures. All scriptures have to be interpreted by someone, and issues always arise that such scriptures do not address. Rule by God or gods thus usually turns out to be rule by one or by a few.
The question of a theocracy does, however, raise important issues for Christians to consider as they participate or decide not to participate in the governance of their countries. To what extent should Christians strive to make the laws of their lands a mirror of their Christian understanding? The same question applies similarly to Muslims today. To what extent should predominantly Muslim countries enact laws based on the Qu'ran?
H. Richard Niebuhr, in his book Christ and Culture, famously suggested five basic ways in which Christianity has related to its surrounding culture throughout history.
1. Christ against Culture
In this model, Christianity sees itself in hostile conflict with the secular culture around it. From an aggressive perspective, the goal might be to eliminate the secular and make the world conform to Christianity. Alternatively, this approach might lead a group to remove itself from the broader culture and isolate itself. Christ and culture are seen as adversaries.
2. Christ of Culture
At other times, Christianity has seen the progress of culture as the unfolding of God's will in the world. Accordingly, cultural developments are Christian developments and so the movement of secular culture is the movement of God. In this model the distinctiveness of Christian faith blurs into the broader worldview of the host culture. Classical Christian liberalism might illustrate this approach.
3. Christ above Culture
This perspective synthesizes culture with Christianity and is best illustrated today by the difficulty some people have of distinguishing things like patriotism from Christianity. The fact that many American churches have American flags on their pulpits is often a hint that a congregation has difficulty distinguishing nationalism or a certain secular political party from Christian faith.
4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
Some Christians have found it difficult to reconcile their Christian beliefs with their participation in secular culture, but they have participated in that broader culture nonetheless by thinking and acting one way in the secular realm and another way in the church. They may recognize that these two ways of thinking and acting are incompatible, but consign this paradox to the time before God sets all things aright.
5. Christ Transforming Culture
This is the conversionist approach to culture that does not eliminate pagan culture but seeks to win it over to Christ, to convert it. It accepts the distinction between Christ and culture but strives to see the culture won over to Christ.
Your sense of which of these options best fits with a Christian approach to culture will depend heavily on your particular theological tradition. For example, the Lutheran tradition functions largely within the fourth model where Christ and culture are two irreconcilable realities that will exist side by side until the end, two kingdoms coexisting next to each other. Even the life of an individual Christian for Luther was "at the same time sinner and righteous, as long as one is always repenting." In a way, a person belongs to both kingdoms at the same time.
The Calvinist model has generally viewed secular culture as something to be taken over for Christ. In Puritan New England, for example, the entire culture was expected to conform to the Christian understanding of its leaders. The Calvinist tradition emphasizes God's sovereignty to the exclusion of human freedom and so understandably tends to be oriented around crushing actions and beliefs that do not conform to its understanding of God's will.
Other traditions, such as the Arminian one in which this book stands, believe that God in His sovereignty has made it possible for humans on this earth to decide whether to serve Him or not. He will eventually reward and punish in relation to such choices, but in this world He has more often than not "given over" the world to the consequences of its choices (Rom. 1). It thus would lean to Niebuhr's fifth option, with an emphasis on winning the world over to Christ rather than forcing the world to conform, conforming to the world, confusing the church with the world, or isolating oneself from the world.
13.1 Ways to Govern Society
If we look at societies from the standpoint of who is in charge, certain basic options emerge to structure the governance of a group of people. We can find examples of each option in history, as well as of "philosophers" who have favored each option. Over the years different societies have learned to combine these options to maximize the benefits of each.
A very old option, and one that we see in play in various parts of the world today, is that of a theocracy. In a theocracy, God or gods are said to rule. We like to think of ancient Israel as somewhat of a theocracy from Moses to the time Israel got a king. John Calvin ran the city of Geneva in the 1500's something like a theocracy. When Muslim groups strive to bring their countries under sharia law, they are striving toward a relatively theocratic form of governance.
The problem with a theocracy, of course, is that the gods rarely came down to govern in person in ancient India, and we find no record of a theophany in Calvin's Geneva. Theocracies almost always turn out to be rule by priests or by central religious figures. All scriptures have to be interpreted by someone, and issues always arise that such scriptures do not address. Rule by God or gods thus usually turns out to be rule by one or by a few.
The question of a theocracy does, however, raise important issues for Christians to consider as they participate or decide not to participate in the governance of their countries. To what extent should Christians strive to make the laws of their lands a mirror of their Christian understanding? The same question applies similarly to Muslims today. To what extent should predominantly Muslim countries enact laws based on the Qu'ran?
H. Richard Niebuhr, in his book Christ and Culture, famously suggested five basic ways in which Christianity has related to its surrounding culture throughout history.
1. Christ against Culture
In this model, Christianity sees itself in hostile conflict with the secular culture around it. From an aggressive perspective, the goal might be to eliminate the secular and make the world conform to Christianity. Alternatively, this approach might lead a group to remove itself from the broader culture and isolate itself. Christ and culture are seen as adversaries.
2. Christ of Culture
At other times, Christianity has seen the progress of culture as the unfolding of God's will in the world. Accordingly, cultural developments are Christian developments and so the movement of secular culture is the movement of God. In this model the distinctiveness of Christian faith blurs into the broader worldview of the host culture. Classical Christian liberalism might illustrate this approach.
3. Christ above Culture
This perspective synthesizes culture with Christianity and is best illustrated today by the difficulty some people have of distinguishing things like patriotism from Christianity. The fact that many American churches have American flags on their pulpits is often a hint that a congregation has difficulty distinguishing nationalism or a certain secular political party from Christian faith.
4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
Some Christians have found it difficult to reconcile their Christian beliefs with their participation in secular culture, but they have participated in that broader culture nonetheless by thinking and acting one way in the secular realm and another way in the church. They may recognize that these two ways of thinking and acting are incompatible, but consign this paradox to the time before God sets all things aright.
5. Christ Transforming Culture
This is the conversionist approach to culture that does not eliminate pagan culture but seeks to win it over to Christ, to convert it. It accepts the distinction between Christ and culture but strives to see the culture won over to Christ.
Your sense of which of these options best fits with a Christian approach to culture will depend heavily on your particular theological tradition. For example, the Lutheran tradition functions largely within the fourth model where Christ and culture are two irreconcilable realities that will exist side by side until the end, two kingdoms coexisting next to each other. Even the life of an individual Christian for Luther was "at the same time sinner and righteous, as long as one is always repenting." In a way, a person belongs to both kingdoms at the same time.
The Calvinist model has generally viewed secular culture as something to be taken over for Christ. In Puritan New England, for example, the entire culture was expected to conform to the Christian understanding of its leaders. The Calvinist tradition emphasizes God's sovereignty to the exclusion of human freedom and so understandably tends to be oriented around crushing actions and beliefs that do not conform to its understanding of God's will.
Other traditions, such as the Arminian one in which this book stands, believe that God in His sovereignty has made it possible for humans on this earth to decide whether to serve Him or not. He will eventually reward and punish in relation to such choices, but in this world He has more often than not "given over" the world to the consequences of its choices (Rom. 1). It thus would lean to Niebuhr's fifth option, with an emphasis on winning the world over to Christ rather than forcing the world to conform, conforming to the world, confusing the church with the world, or isolating oneself from the world.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Who Won?
Trying to be objective, I couldn't pick a clear winner last night. Both candidates presented their positions and either you agree more with one or the other. And the style of one or the another might grate on you--Obama if you think he's smug and cocky, McCain if you think he's condescending and rude.
The polls I've seen so far give Obama the edge. What do you think?
The polls I've seen so far give Obama the edge. What do you think?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Quotes, Allusions and Echoes in Hebrews 5-7
5:8 Jesus learned obedience through the things he suffered.
This I take to be an allusion to the audience's situation, an idea the author will develop more extensively in chapter 12 as he talks about the disciplining of the Lord. I will suggest in chapter 12 that events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem could be involved in such discipline.
5:10 priest after the order of Melchizedek
The mention of Jesus as such a priest sparks the central and most stinging exhortation of the sermon. In my view, the audience's failure to appreciate the full signifcance of Christ's atonement is the central rhetorical problem the author is addressing. As I'm arguing, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple might stand at the heart of their crisis.
6:18 those who flee to grasp the hope before us
The first thought I have here is of the city of refuge. Of course the audience has not killed someone, but the image of fleeing to a new city fits with the heavenly Jerusalem imagery of chapters 11 and 12.
7:24-25 because he always remains for ever he has an unchangeable priesthood
Again, whether or not comments like this have overtones of a priesthood removed in Jerusalem is not clear at all. Such decisions have to be made from other passages.
This I take to be an allusion to the audience's situation, an idea the author will develop more extensively in chapter 12 as he talks about the disciplining of the Lord. I will suggest in chapter 12 that events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem could be involved in such discipline.
5:10 priest after the order of Melchizedek
The mention of Jesus as such a priest sparks the central and most stinging exhortation of the sermon. In my view, the audience's failure to appreciate the full signifcance of Christ's atonement is the central rhetorical problem the author is addressing. As I'm arguing, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple might stand at the heart of their crisis.
6:18 those who flee to grasp the hope before us
The first thought I have here is of the city of refuge. Of course the audience has not killed someone, but the image of fleeing to a new city fits with the heavenly Jerusalem imagery of chapters 11 and 12.
7:24-25 because he always remains for ever he has an unchangeable priesthood
Again, whether or not comments like this have overtones of a priesthood removed in Jerusalem is not clear at all. Such decisions have to be made from other passages.
The Little Pre-Modern in all of Us...
I started another 8 week masters class in Indy last night with IWU's grad ministry program. This one's called Contemporary Theological Trends, but the subtitle tells what the course is really about: The Church and Postmodernism. Pending final approval (our site visit went muy-excellente), IWU will start offering an MDIV next Fall through this department. Then IWU might house it in a new seminary the following year--we'll see.
From what I hear, this class is a bit of a bear for most cohorts. The typical make-up of these classes is very interesting. They are very diverse and typically made up of individuals who would not otherwise seek a graduate degree or go to seminary. They tend to be very conservative in some ways (even compared to the traditional campus), although all over the theological map.
So last night I was trying to prepare them for reading in Stanley Grenz (A Primer on Postmodernism and Beyond Foundationalism). Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty aren't coffee table reading in most American homes. I would say most of them come to the course with a somewhat negative impression of postmodernism.
I made a couple of claims in preparation. The first is that we need to distinquish postmodernism as a philosophical trajectory from postmodernism as a cultural one. Culture is a never ending bounce from one event to another, from one ethos to another, from one ideology to another. The emerging/emergent trend in Christian culture is impacted by postmodern philosophy, but the two should be carefully distinguished, I think.
A second claim is that postmodernism as a philosophy should not be conceived as the current pinnacle of the evolution of thought. Postmodern thought is unthought, unravelling. It is not the next step, as if it gives us the new "assured results of philosophy." That is still modernist thinking. Extreme postmodernism is the end of philosophy, the end of thought as we thought we knew it. It is an abyss that everyone should look into... and then go back to their "normal" lives.
My take away is that we are all a mixture of pre-modernism, modernism, and hopefully, post-modernism. We are all "pre-modern" in the sense that we are all unreflective about aspects of our lives. There are always areas of our lives where we do not realize we could look differently at them. We cannot make ourselves reflective about all of them because we do not even realize we are unreflective about them.
The goal of the true philosopher should be to become as reflective as possible. The quest for objectivity is a never ending one and one ultimately doomed for failure. But the myth of objectivity is one we must repeatedly affirm and pursue. We may not be able to achieve it perfectly, but we can often distinguish more objective claims from less objective ones.
We become healthy postmoderns when we make this pursuit humbly. We recognize the limitations of our knowledge. We knowingly re-embrace some of our pre-modern values not as the only options objectively but the ones that we choose to embrace.
From what I hear, this class is a bit of a bear for most cohorts. The typical make-up of these classes is very interesting. They are very diverse and typically made up of individuals who would not otherwise seek a graduate degree or go to seminary. They tend to be very conservative in some ways (even compared to the traditional campus), although all over the theological map.
So last night I was trying to prepare them for reading in Stanley Grenz (A Primer on Postmodernism and Beyond Foundationalism). Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty aren't coffee table reading in most American homes. I would say most of them come to the course with a somewhat negative impression of postmodernism.
I made a couple of claims in preparation. The first is that we need to distinquish postmodernism as a philosophical trajectory from postmodernism as a cultural one. Culture is a never ending bounce from one event to another, from one ethos to another, from one ideology to another. The emerging/emergent trend in Christian culture is impacted by postmodern philosophy, but the two should be carefully distinguished, I think.
A second claim is that postmodernism as a philosophy should not be conceived as the current pinnacle of the evolution of thought. Postmodern thought is unthought, unravelling. It is not the next step, as if it gives us the new "assured results of philosophy." That is still modernist thinking. Extreme postmodernism is the end of philosophy, the end of thought as we thought we knew it. It is an abyss that everyone should look into... and then go back to their "normal" lives.
My take away is that we are all a mixture of pre-modernism, modernism, and hopefully, post-modernism. We are all "pre-modern" in the sense that we are all unreflective about aspects of our lives. There are always areas of our lives where we do not realize we could look differently at them. We cannot make ourselves reflective about all of them because we do not even realize we are unreflective about them.
The goal of the true philosopher should be to become as reflective as possible. The quest for objectivity is a never ending one and one ultimately doomed for failure. But the myth of objectivity is one we must repeatedly affirm and pursue. We may not be able to achieve it perfectly, but we can often distinguish more objective claims from less objective ones.
We become healthy postmoderns when we make this pursuit humbly. We recognize the limitations of our knowledge. We knowingly re-embrace some of our pre-modern values not as the only options objectively but the ones that we choose to embrace.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Monday Editorial: Palin, Biden, and Homosexual Unions
Since I have grown up with the evangelical political machine, last Thursday night's debate provided at least one really fascinating twist. First, we all know how this thing works for both sides. As soon as a candidate and running mate are "sanctified" by their party, from that point on they can do no wrong. It is one of the most amazing examples of irrationality I know. Suddenly the opposer becomes the antichrist and the candidate of your party becomes the messiah.
So normally, Biden provided a great antichrist moment last Thursday. He supported full rights for partners of committed gay couples. Normally this is the moment the machine waits for so that they can rend their clothes and say, "What further evidence do we need?"
The problem this time is that Palin completely agreed with him, and this is McCain's position as well. There was no difference between Palin and Biden on this issue. Both rejected a redefinition of marriage, but both supported full civil rights between homosexual partners.
You'll remember that in the 2004 election, part of Rove's strategy was to put referenda relating to gay marriage on several ballots (e.g., Ohio) to steer people away from Kerry. California has something like this on its ballot this year too. But it's hard for McCain to use it when Obama's position is exactly the same as his.
I have also thought that Palin's comments on Roe v. Wade have been very interesting. Has she come out against abortion, per se? She has supported sending the issue back to the States by repealing Roe v. Wade. And of course, there we know that most states will continue to allow for abortion. It's a clever way of fitting the rubric--I'm against Roe v. Wade--without coming out too specifically against the issue in question.
Nevertheless, in the great Bacchanalia that is election season, most won't notice that McCain and Obama really don't look that much different in their specific positions on this staple issue. The masses will largely assume that the messiah holds their views and the antichrist vigorously opposes them--on both sides.
So normally, Biden provided a great antichrist moment last Thursday. He supported full rights for partners of committed gay couples. Normally this is the moment the machine waits for so that they can rend their clothes and say, "What further evidence do we need?"
The problem this time is that Palin completely agreed with him, and this is McCain's position as well. There was no difference between Palin and Biden on this issue. Both rejected a redefinition of marriage, but both supported full civil rights between homosexual partners.
You'll remember that in the 2004 election, part of Rove's strategy was to put referenda relating to gay marriage on several ballots (e.g., Ohio) to steer people away from Kerry. California has something like this on its ballot this year too. But it's hard for McCain to use it when Obama's position is exactly the same as his.
I have also thought that Palin's comments on Roe v. Wade have been very interesting. Has she come out against abortion, per se? She has supported sending the issue back to the States by repealing Roe v. Wade. And of course, there we know that most states will continue to allow for abortion. It's a clever way of fitting the rubric--I'm against Roe v. Wade--without coming out too specifically against the issue in question.
Nevertheless, in the great Bacchanalia that is election season, most won't notice that McCain and Obama really don't look that much different in their specific positions on this staple issue. The masses will largely assume that the messiah holds their views and the antichrist vigorously opposes them--on both sides.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Angelic Refusal Tradition???
It's always funny when you have assumed something for a while and then actually investigate it and find out it is based on pretty flimsy evidence. Such it is with the so called "refusal tradition" of Jewish apocalyptic. Richard Bauckham's 1981 article in NTS, "The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity" seems to be the real fountainhead of this idea in recent years.
The idea is that the Jewish apocalyptic tradition put a strong emphasis on angels refusing worship from those to whom they appear. In the book of Revelation, for example, the angel of chapter 19 refuses the worship of John. The idea makes enough sense, since Jews believed in "one God," surely angels would refuse worship.
But when you look into Bauckham's "best shot," the texts that have angels refusing worship, the actual results are very scanty. There is a tradition of angels appearing to people and of people being afraid, and of the angels allaying fear. But there are very few instances of angels telling the people to whom they appear not to worship them.
So Bauckham really only has the Ascension of Isaiah and Revelation to point to in all Jewish literature through the first century AD--and these are both Christian texts! Sure, Tobit and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah have angel incidences where fear is allayed, but no refusal of worship.
The conclusion I am coming to the more I look at the work of Bauckham and Hurtado, in dialog with the sources, is that they draw somewhat artifical lines around the sources. The result is a partial truth, but a somewhat skewed one as well... in my opinion.
The idea is that the Jewish apocalyptic tradition put a strong emphasis on angels refusing worship from those to whom they appear. In the book of Revelation, for example, the angel of chapter 19 refuses the worship of John. The idea makes enough sense, since Jews believed in "one God," surely angels would refuse worship.
But when you look into Bauckham's "best shot," the texts that have angels refusing worship, the actual results are very scanty. There is a tradition of angels appearing to people and of people being afraid, and of the angels allaying fear. But there are very few instances of angels telling the people to whom they appear not to worship them.
So Bauckham really only has the Ascension of Isaiah and Revelation to point to in all Jewish literature through the first century AD--and these are both Christian texts! Sure, Tobit and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah have angel incidences where fear is allayed, but no refusal of worship.
The conclusion I am coming to the more I look at the work of Bauckham and Hurtado, in dialog with the sources, is that they draw somewhat artifical lines around the sources. The result is a partial truth, but a somewhat skewed one as well... in my opinion.
Quotes, Allusions and Echoes in Hebrews 3-4
I have three papers to finish in the next month and a half ... Argh!
I thought I'd pick up with the easiest of the three. Looking for possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem in Hebrews. I've done chaps. 1, 2, and 13 already, so I thought I would pick it up with chapter 3 and 4 today.
3:1 "partakers of a heavenly calling" fits into my thesis of a wholesale reorientation of future destiny heavenward rather than around the redemption of the earthly.
3:5 "Moses was faithful in his whole house as a servant" This is an allusion to Numbers 12:7. It is not relevant really to my study, but I mention it because the Intertextuality group is focusing on houses and households. My focus, somewhat forced, is on the different house of the heavenly sanctuary. This is forced because Hebrews really doesn't use house imagery this way. But I put in an earmark here in relation to the section of Hebrews I would better have presented on if I had known the theme they were going to choose at that time.
I did not pick up any clear allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem in Hebrews 3 and 4. The long citation of Psalm 95 does have to do with entering God's rest, entering into Canaan. In that sense it does presuppose that the audience is not in Canaan. And given the rest of Hebrews, it does not seem likely that Canaan is anywhere on earth.
The mention to Christ as one able to help with temptation probably had specific temptations in mind, especially the temptation to give up faith. On my reconstruction, this certainly has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, but nothing in these two chapters constitutes a concrete allusion or reference.
I thought I'd pick up with the easiest of the three. Looking for possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem in Hebrews. I've done chaps. 1, 2, and 13 already, so I thought I would pick it up with chapter 3 and 4 today.
3:1 "partakers of a heavenly calling" fits into my thesis of a wholesale reorientation of future destiny heavenward rather than around the redemption of the earthly.
3:5 "Moses was faithful in his whole house as a servant" This is an allusion to Numbers 12:7. It is not relevant really to my study, but I mention it because the Intertextuality group is focusing on houses and households. My focus, somewhat forced, is on the different house of the heavenly sanctuary. This is forced because Hebrews really doesn't use house imagery this way. But I put in an earmark here in relation to the section of Hebrews I would better have presented on if I had known the theme they were going to choose at that time.
I did not pick up any clear allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem in Hebrews 3 and 4. The long citation of Psalm 95 does have to do with entering God's rest, entering into Canaan. In that sense it does presuppose that the audience is not in Canaan. And given the rest of Hebrews, it does not seem likely that Canaan is anywhere on earth.
The mention to Christ as one able to help with temptation probably had specific temptations in mind, especially the temptation to give up faith. On my reconstruction, this certainly has to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, but nothing in these two chapters constitutes a concrete allusion or reference.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Enjoying the Misfortune of Others...
... that's what Schadenfreude means. I really identified with this piece in the New York Times today:
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/waiting-for-schadenfreude/?8ty&emc=ty
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/waiting-for-schadenfreude/?8ty&emc=ty
Palin Did OK...
Palin did OK last night. Unlike a lot of others, I'm not surprised. She may be inexperienced on things like foreign policy and judicial precedent, but she's not stupid. And there's a big difference between a debate where you pretty much know what questions are going to get asked and an interview where someone might ask you random questions out of the blue--like your least favorite Supreme Court decision or what newspapers you read to get your information.
At the same time, last week left me thinking that what they have been considering a strength of Palin--I'm not a Washington insider--in her case is a significant weakness. She's not had her head in Washington at all. She does not know American judicial history nor has she been paying careful attention to the foreign policy decisions of the last 7 years.
When the "Bush doctrine" was born, she was the mayor of a middle sized town on the outposts of America, just recently having been a hockey mom. And why would she know American judicial history? She was a perky journalism major.
So she's smart. She's a quick study. But it no surprise that her answers usually stay on the level of general sentiments rather than specifics. She's learning the specifics on the fly.
At the same time, last week left me thinking that what they have been considering a strength of Palin--I'm not a Washington insider--in her case is a significant weakness. She's not had her head in Washington at all. She does not know American judicial history nor has she been paying careful attention to the foreign policy decisions of the last 7 years.
When the "Bush doctrine" was born, she was the mayor of a middle sized town on the outposts of America, just recently having been a hockey mom. And why would she know American judicial history? She was a perky journalism major.
So she's smart. She's a quick study. But it no surprise that her answers usually stay on the level of general sentiments rather than specifics. She's learning the specifics on the fly.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Paul, Sin, and Galatians
This last run through Galatians has convinced me more than ever that Paul's theology of sin and the Law is far from a systematic theology. He is making rhetorical arguments against opponents, grasping at explanations for end conclusions. Many of his statements have to be held in tension, and in tension they are.
What this means is that a neo-Arminian or a neo-Calvinist approach to Paul's writings should acknowledge from the start that they are working beyond Paul, that they are creating a systematic view of such things in a way that Paul did not. This acknowledgement of course raises the question of how one goes about systematizing Pauline theology. Here the historical traditions come into play--and of course a fuller appreciation for other theologies within the pages of the Bible, understood within the worldviews of the original contexts.
All that is neither here nor there. I want briefly to address this question: If all we had were Galatians, what theology of sin would we perceive Paul to have?
The first passage to deal with is Galatians 2:15-21. In this passage Paul moves from 1) acknowledging that Gentiles are sinners to 2) the conclusion that Jews, even Jewish believers, are sinners too. This side of Galatians we might summarize as Those who are under Law are sinners.
How is this the case? This is the case because they are judged by the Law. When they are judged by the Jewish Law, they are concluded to be "transgressors" (2:18). No one completely keeps the Law, so those who attempt to be found righteous before God on this basis will fail. Indeed, such individuals are under a curse (3:10).
At the end of Galatians, Paul suggests that even those who would urge the Galatians to be circumcised do not keep the Law (6:13), at least not to his standards. Indeed, he accuses even Peter in 2:14 of being hypocritcal because he expects Gentile converts at Antioch to follow the Jewish Law when he himself is far from a model on that score.
Justification in the context of the Jewish Law, therefore, is a matter of grace. One is deemed right with God because Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (3:13). Faith constitutes a different "righteousing system" from "works of Law," by which Paul primarily but not exclusively refers to specifics of the Jewish Law that most distinguished Jew from Gentile.
BUT, Paul then smuggles a certain kind of works back into the equation "post-justification." We might call this side of Paul's ethic: Certain works will keep you from being justified and Believers' lives will have certain works.
As a side note, it is problematic even to speak of "post-justification," for justification ultimately looks to the future Day of Christ (2:17; 5:5). The ambiguity in Paul's thought between present and future justification is the focal point of tension in his thought on faith and works. In relation to the Jewish past, it is justification by faith not works. In relation to Christian ethics, it is justification by faith in conjunction with certain expected and rejected "works."
We do not see this emphasis on "post-believing" works as much in Galatians as in other passages in Paul's writings. His argument in Galatians 3-4 views the Law as slavery and following the Law as enslavement to the weak, impoverished elements of the world (4:9). In the central part of Galatians he argues for freedom from the Law as a standard of life and living.
Now in chapter 5 he turns the other way and urges them not to use their freedom as an opportunity for their flesh (5:13). They are to follow the essence of the Law, which is love (5:14). The Spirit is presented as the empowerment not to gratify the desires of one's flesh (5:16). What this means is that a Christian's life will manifest the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23) and not the works of the flesh (5:19-21). These are works that a believer cannot do, and if a believer does them, that person will not inherit the kingdom of God (5:21). What a person sows, they will reap (6:7).
What we seem to find is that while works cannot qualify you for justification, certain works can disqualify you. Further, certain behaviors are required of believers. Paul has no well worked out theology here of works resulting from justification and the Spirit, although he might very well be happy with such a harmonization of his statements. He simply says that what counts as far as justification before God is "faith working through love" (5:6).
The great systems of Calvinism and Arminianism, both rooted in the harmonizations of Augustine, are reasonable systematizations of Paul's thought if we acknowledge the point where non-Pauline theological "glue" is introduced into the system.
However, Paul's thinking seems much more "street" level thinking. He asserts the following things without working out the details:
1. Works of Law (especially the most distinctively Jewish ones) do not justify before God.
2. No one can keep the Jewish Law completely.
3. Believers are free from this Law.
4. Believers are justified by Jesus' faith and their faith in God.
5. Believers will not be justified if they behave a certain way.
6. The Spirit empowers the right way of behaving, the "fruit of the Spirit."
What this means is that a neo-Arminian or a neo-Calvinist approach to Paul's writings should acknowledge from the start that they are working beyond Paul, that they are creating a systematic view of such things in a way that Paul did not. This acknowledgement of course raises the question of how one goes about systematizing Pauline theology. Here the historical traditions come into play--and of course a fuller appreciation for other theologies within the pages of the Bible, understood within the worldviews of the original contexts.
All that is neither here nor there. I want briefly to address this question: If all we had were Galatians, what theology of sin would we perceive Paul to have?
The first passage to deal with is Galatians 2:15-21. In this passage Paul moves from 1) acknowledging that Gentiles are sinners to 2) the conclusion that Jews, even Jewish believers, are sinners too. This side of Galatians we might summarize as Those who are under Law are sinners.
How is this the case? This is the case because they are judged by the Law. When they are judged by the Jewish Law, they are concluded to be "transgressors" (2:18). No one completely keeps the Law, so those who attempt to be found righteous before God on this basis will fail. Indeed, such individuals are under a curse (3:10).
At the end of Galatians, Paul suggests that even those who would urge the Galatians to be circumcised do not keep the Law (6:13), at least not to his standards. Indeed, he accuses even Peter in 2:14 of being hypocritcal because he expects Gentile converts at Antioch to follow the Jewish Law when he himself is far from a model on that score.
Justification in the context of the Jewish Law, therefore, is a matter of grace. One is deemed right with God because Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (3:13). Faith constitutes a different "righteousing system" from "works of Law," by which Paul primarily but not exclusively refers to specifics of the Jewish Law that most distinguished Jew from Gentile.
BUT, Paul then smuggles a certain kind of works back into the equation "post-justification." We might call this side of Paul's ethic: Certain works will keep you from being justified and Believers' lives will have certain works.
As a side note, it is problematic even to speak of "post-justification," for justification ultimately looks to the future Day of Christ (2:17; 5:5). The ambiguity in Paul's thought between present and future justification is the focal point of tension in his thought on faith and works. In relation to the Jewish past, it is justification by faith not works. In relation to Christian ethics, it is justification by faith in conjunction with certain expected and rejected "works."
We do not see this emphasis on "post-believing" works as much in Galatians as in other passages in Paul's writings. His argument in Galatians 3-4 views the Law as slavery and following the Law as enslavement to the weak, impoverished elements of the world (4:9). In the central part of Galatians he argues for freedom from the Law as a standard of life and living.
Now in chapter 5 he turns the other way and urges them not to use their freedom as an opportunity for their flesh (5:13). They are to follow the essence of the Law, which is love (5:14). The Spirit is presented as the empowerment not to gratify the desires of one's flesh (5:16). What this means is that a Christian's life will manifest the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23) and not the works of the flesh (5:19-21). These are works that a believer cannot do, and if a believer does them, that person will not inherit the kingdom of God (5:21). What a person sows, they will reap (6:7).
What we seem to find is that while works cannot qualify you for justification, certain works can disqualify you. Further, certain behaviors are required of believers. Paul has no well worked out theology here of works resulting from justification and the Spirit, although he might very well be happy with such a harmonization of his statements. He simply says that what counts as far as justification before God is "faith working through love" (5:6).
The great systems of Calvinism and Arminianism, both rooted in the harmonizations of Augustine, are reasonable systematizations of Paul's thought if we acknowledge the point where non-Pauline theological "glue" is introduced into the system.
However, Paul's thinking seems much more "street" level thinking. He asserts the following things without working out the details:
1. Works of Law (especially the most distinctively Jewish ones) do not justify before God.
2. No one can keep the Jewish Law completely.
3. Believers are free from this Law.
4. Believers are justified by Jesus' faith and their faith in God.
5. Believers will not be justified if they behave a certain way.
6. The Spirit empowers the right way of behaving, the "fruit of the Spirit."
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Palin's Greatest Hits
Here's a litany of Palin on Palin put together by Keith Obermann. She may shine tomorrow night, but I feel sorry for her today.
Then here is Saturday Night Live's parody:
Then here is Saturday Night Live's parody:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
