I thought I would blog through Tom Wright’s book from last year, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, over the course of Easter season, hopefully finishing around Pentecost. James Dunn’s second volume seems to be a little stalled but I would like to dedicate perhaps as much as the rest of the year to moving through it as soon as it is out. Then maybe during Advent I can go back and finish Dunn's volume on Jesus.
John Drury has already blogged through Surprised by Hope and I have every reason to believe that you will get more benefit from his review than from mine. My approach, as anyone who has read me will know, is much more evaluative (especially when it comes to exegesis) and less edifying. But alas, I am who I am.
Today I want to look at the Preface and first two chapters, tomorrow at chapter 3. Then Sunday I hope to look at chapter 4. Then on the following Sundays till Pentecost I hope to review roughly two chapters a week. If I have time to interface with the longer version, The Resurrection of the Son of God, I will.
I’ve heard rumors that this book will become a Christian classic. It’s an interesting thought and time will tell. As Wright himself points out, people’s orientation toward the future often correlates with what’s going on in the culture around them. When times are desperate, we often find either apocalyptic “God is about to break into history” thinking. Or otherwise, we find a focus on “you die and go to heaven, which is a better place.” Perhaps it is no surprise that in a time when we feel like we can actually make a difference and change the world, Wright has produced a book that emphasizes the this-worldliness of resurrection both present and future.
Of course Wright is right to point out the “this worldly” orientation of much of the New Testament’s eschatological imagery. When Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God, he was not talking about going off somewhere but about something that would happen here on earth. And when Paul speaks of meeting Jesus in the air, it is probably not to go off somewhere else but to return to earth and participate in the judgment of men and angels (and women too :-).
Wright of course is not the first to point these things out, although he correctly recognizes that these well known data have scarcely trickled down to the pew. Oscar Cullmann dropped the same bombshell on Germany over fifty years ago with a little book called Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead. It caused quite a stir, much more than Wright’s book will if for no reason other than our culture by and large doesn’t care any more about what famous theologians and biblical scholars say.
What is interesting in my own pilgrimage is that I went to my Wright-phase in the early 90s. Then I did a sabbatical in Tübingen exploring different Jewish trajectories on the afterlife. I never published the results of that study (although I did finish my Philo book thanks to their excellent library). I might add that a slough of other afterlife books came out about that time, making another one by me completely unnecessary.
I say proudly, however, that I presented some of my early research to the historical Jesus section of SBL in 1999 while Wright was working on The Resurrection of the Son of God, and Wright took a copy of my paper. My paper started (as did one I gave to the Q section the following year) by sketching out four streams of afterlife thought in Judaism at the time of Christ: 1) no afterlife (Sadducees), 2) otherworldly afterlife at a future time (Essenes), 3) otherworldly afterlife immediately at death (Philo), and 4) this worldly afterlife (Pharisees).
I note with a grin that Wright expanded Resurrection after the Fall of 1999 (xvi) to include material like Chapter 4, which presents the lay of the land of post-biblical Judaism in terms of 1) no future life, 2) blessed and disembodied immortality, and 3) resurrection. :-) He doesn't categorize things quite the way I do entirely and of course since he is a better scholar than I am, he includes things I didn't include. If I have time I'll review the fourth chapter of Resurrection tomorrow along with the third chapter of Surprised.
So many thoughts, so few published... As you'll see, I've since come to wonder whether the "die and go to heaven" view is as completely foreign to the New Testament as Wright makes it.
In the Preface, Wright indicates that two questions shape the book: 1) the ultimate future hope and 2) what it means for our work for God's kingdom now.
Chapter 1: "All Dressed Up and No Place to Go?"
This chapter is a warm up. He will expand on its brief comments later. There is great variety of belief out there about the afterlife and, interestingly, "I suspect there was never a period when Christian orthodoxy on the subject was the belief of even the majority of people in Britian" (8). Some historians suggest that belief in hell was a casualty of World War 1. He reiterates and illustrates the two questions that shape the book.
The chapter ends with three basic varieties of (unorthodox) afterlife belief he detects today: 1) no afterlife, complete end to existence, 2) some form of reincarnation, and 3) something along the lines of ghosts and spirits.
Chapter 2: "Puzzled about Paradise?"
Now he goes into more detail on the variety even among Christians. There is the sense by some that death is our friend, a slipping away to a better place forever where we will soon join our loved ones. No, Wright says. Death is an enemy, an enemy that Jesus has conquered and will see finally vanquished at the coming resurrection of all the dead.
The emphasis on heaven and hell is similarly unbiblical. The Bible has little to say about either, Wright says. He goes through several hymns that, he claims, "reveal the confusion we have got ourselves into" (23). And further, we have come to put more emphasis on Christmas (=two chapters in the NT) versus what should be the center, Easter. "Take that away and there is, almost literally, nothing left."
Key questions? How do we know about all this? Scripture, tradition, and reason, he says interestingly, is the Anglican way. The Methodists would add experience :-) Do we have immortal souls? They have minimal support in the NT, he says. What is the starting point? Jesus' resurrection, he says.
More, d.v., tomorrow...
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Generous Orthodoxy 0: Introductory Stuff
My blogging is going to have to slow down over the course of the summer and into next year. I will still plan to post at least one entry a week. Until then, I hope to continue several threads.
For Wednesdays or Thursdays in the meantime, I have been wanting to read Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy for a while. I bought it over a year ago. But since I've been taking off on the name (my Generous Ecclesiology idea), I thought I should go ahead and read the book.
The subtitle is "Why I Am a missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished CHRISTIAN."
Yesterday I read John Franke's Foreward, McLaren's Introduction, and his Chapter 0: For Mature Audiences Only. Let me start off by saying, what a refreshing and uplifting read these pages were! I'm sure I won't agree with everything McLaren says, but after wading through Viola's book these last weeks, McLaren is such a breath of fresh air. If you want to know what form of orthodox Christianity has the best chance of surviving and possibly thriving in Western culture in the days ahead (the real stuff will of course survive regardless of what we do), it is this kind of Christianity.
Although it goes against the spirit and warnings of the book in terms of generosity, let me take the Wesleyan troops aside for a second and say, this book is so Wesleyan in spirit. I know there are some corners of my fellowship that see this book as part of the problem. And let me say that I hope they will reconsider. There are no doubt things associated with words like "postmodern," "emergent," "tolerant," and so forth that are worth worrying about. But the problem with using labels to dismiss ideas ("socialist," "communist," "Democrat," "Republican") is that doing so almost always ends up dismissing good things with the bad, almost always, almost without exception! Let the person wanting to honor God with their thinking beware!
I do not think that McLaren--as far as I can tell so far--embodies any of the bad you might find in any labels you might try to affix to him. I fear that using such labels to dismiss him--without engaging in what he has to say--is not only bad thinking, is a poor representation of Christ to good thinkers. But I believe it is bad Christianity, potentially giving Satan an opportunity to manipulate us to where we ignore things God wants us to hear. There are things McLaren has to say, I believe, that are what God thinks. Just in case, we should open our hearts and minds to what he has to say. If he doesn't, then close them back off.
Foreward by Franke
The phrase "generous orthodoxy" doesn't actually come from McLaren. It comes from Hans Frei, a "post-liberal" theologian. As far as I can tell, the focal difference between a "post-liberal" and a "post-conservative" is where you came from. I come from a conservative background, so if you called me a "post-conservative" you would mean that I was a person from a conservative background trying to move beyond the older stilted categories of conservative and liberal. A "post-liberal" is doing the same coming from the other direction.
A great quote from Frei is this: "Generosity without orthodoxy is nothing, but orthodoxy without generosity is worse than nothing" (14). I wholeheartedly agree and think all in the Wesleyan tradition should.
Here are some quotes from the foreward:
"... postmodern theory does not support the rejection of rationality but rather supports rethinking rationality in the wake of modernity" (10).
"Foundationalism refers to a conception of knowledge that emerged during the Enlightenment and sought to address the lack of certainty generated by the human tendency toward error and to overcome the inevitable, often destructive disagreements that followed... The assumptions of foundationalism, with its goal of establishing certain and universal knowledge, came to dominate intellectual pursuit in the modern era" (10-11).
I might say that I have no problem with looking for models that aim to encompass reality universally, so I am not so much opposed to the looking for universal foundations as to thinking of them as actual explanations for the world. Beyond our perceptions is only faith and mystery. But there is great usefulness in foundational language, as long as we recognize its limits.
Franke tells us that the book "maintains a focus on Jesus Christ as the center of the Christian faith" (12). I have actually heard of Christians who warn people who say such things. I understand what they mean--they see such rhetoric as a backdoor way of undercutting the Bible. But it seems obvious to me that this statement is beyond debate. As important as the Bible is, it is the word of God, while Jesus is the Word of God.
One controversial aspect of the book is apparently the possibility McLaren holds out (and Lessle Newbigin) that while the revelation in Jesus Christ is unique, it might be possible for some outside the faith to be saved (through him). This is a controversial issue. It is important to recognize that this position is not clearly heretical. It amounts to the old Wesleyan (and Quaker) sense that people will be judged according to the light they have. Beware, Wesleyans, of the extent to which your thinking has been influenced by other traditions without you/us realizing it. I take no official position myself on this issue, since I scarcely can speak with the authority of God. I can only say that I think a person with the heart of Christ would be hopeful that it is true.
Introduction and Chapter 0
Here McLaren positions the book in terms of audience. I like his style. He obviously likes G. K. Chesterton, and I can see elements of his style that mirror him. He tends to use hyperbole a lot and playfully puts himself down. In his "For Mature Audiences Only" he goes through all the reason why you might want to take the book back to the bookstore. Just to give you a sense of his style:
"Speaking of smoke, this book suggests that relativists are right in their denunciation of absolutism. It also affirms that absolutists are right in their denunciation of relativism. And then it suggests that they are both wrong because the answer lies beyond both absolutism and relativism. I'll bet that sounds like nonsense to nine of 10 readers, which should bring the words store credit to mind" (38).
At the end of Chapter 0 he assumes you have either taken the book back to the store before you got there and checked the box agreeing that you agree to put up with the strangeness of the book. Then he tells us who he is really writing the book for: people who are about to leave Christianity and spiritual seekers attracted to Jesus who don't think there's any room in Christianity for them (39).
Lots of great quotes and partial insights into McLaren's personality, but let me stick to some thoughts:
The approach of the book, "which might be called postcritical, seeks to find a way to embrace the good in many traditions and historic streams of Christian faith, and to integrate them, yielding a new, generous, emergent approach that is greater than the sum of its parts" (18).
The word emergent throws some people off. Beware again that labelology is bad thinking! You cannot logically dismiss an idea by labelling it. If there are bad things about emergent thought or some who call themselves emergent it is because there are bad things about emergent thought and about some who call themselves emergent. Labelling someone as "emergent" does not separate the good from the bad.
McClaren believes the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds (28) and "(this is so Protestant) that Scripture itself remains above the creeds and that the Holy Spirit may use Scripture to tweak our creedal understandings and emphases from time to time." He hasn't said anything that will allow you to call him unorthodox yet and certainly he has said nothing yet that a Wesleyan can object to.
This is a great postmodern statement--and it is exactly the attitude I think we should all have: "I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases" (20-21).
He quotes with approval the late Stanley Grenz quoting the late Hans Frei: "My own vision of what might be propitious for our day, split as we are, not so much into denominations as into schools of thought, is that we need a kind of generous orthodoxy which would have in it an element of liberalism...and an element of evangelicalism" (23-24). The mention of liberalism is scary, I know, but didn't the liberals of the early twentieth century pay more attention to helping the needy than the conservatives did? OK, there, I've found at least one liberal thing where they were more Christian than the conservatives. We'll have to see where McLaren takes that thought...
I should give you McLaren's somewhat unique understanding of orthodoxy. It is quite postmodern, but I think we can and should mostly go with it: "To link orthodoxy with a practice, as the previous paragraph does, further makes this book seem ridiculous because many orthodoxies have always and everywhere assumed that orthodoxy (right thinking and opinion about the gospel) and orthopraxy (right practice of the gospel) could and should be separated... In contrast... Absurdly (to some at least), this book seems to approach orthodoxy as a tool or means to achieve orthopraxy. You want to know the rules, not so you can blow whistles as a referee, but so you can have a lot of glorious good clean fun as a player, throwing passes and making assists and sinking three-pointers and layups without fouling out. In sum, this book seems orthopraxy as the point of orthodoxy--again, a concept so unorthodox as to encourage a good many readers to abandon this book right now" (30-31).
There are some American Christian traditions that are almost entirely oriented around ideas and cognitive things. Indeed, they are the power holders in neo-evangelicalism since the 40's. These are groups where "orthodoxy could be articulated and debated by scholars or officials who had little responsibility to actually live by or live out the orthodoxy they defended" (30-31). Again, as an aside to those in the Wesleyan tradition, that is not us. We have always emphasized behavior and personal piety as equally important to our ideas. Other traditions might decry McLaren on these points, but we should applaud him.
Final thought for the introductory stuff is that McLaren is obviously a pretty smart guy, no matter what he says of himself. Disagree with him we may, but it seems is heart is in the right place, and that is far more important to God than whether his head is correct on every issue... at least that's what we Wesleyans believe.
For Wednesdays or Thursdays in the meantime, I have been wanting to read Brian McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy for a while. I bought it over a year ago. But since I've been taking off on the name (my Generous Ecclesiology idea), I thought I should go ahead and read the book.
The subtitle is "Why I Am a missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished CHRISTIAN."
Yesterday I read John Franke's Foreward, McLaren's Introduction, and his Chapter 0: For Mature Audiences Only. Let me start off by saying, what a refreshing and uplifting read these pages were! I'm sure I won't agree with everything McLaren says, but after wading through Viola's book these last weeks, McLaren is such a breath of fresh air. If you want to know what form of orthodox Christianity has the best chance of surviving and possibly thriving in Western culture in the days ahead (the real stuff will of course survive regardless of what we do), it is this kind of Christianity.
Although it goes against the spirit and warnings of the book in terms of generosity, let me take the Wesleyan troops aside for a second and say, this book is so Wesleyan in spirit. I know there are some corners of my fellowship that see this book as part of the problem. And let me say that I hope they will reconsider. There are no doubt things associated with words like "postmodern," "emergent," "tolerant," and so forth that are worth worrying about. But the problem with using labels to dismiss ideas ("socialist," "communist," "Democrat," "Republican") is that doing so almost always ends up dismissing good things with the bad, almost always, almost without exception! Let the person wanting to honor God with their thinking beware!
I do not think that McLaren--as far as I can tell so far--embodies any of the bad you might find in any labels you might try to affix to him. I fear that using such labels to dismiss him--without engaging in what he has to say--is not only bad thinking, is a poor representation of Christ to good thinkers. But I believe it is bad Christianity, potentially giving Satan an opportunity to manipulate us to where we ignore things God wants us to hear. There are things McLaren has to say, I believe, that are what God thinks. Just in case, we should open our hearts and minds to what he has to say. If he doesn't, then close them back off.
Foreward by Franke
The phrase "generous orthodoxy" doesn't actually come from McLaren. It comes from Hans Frei, a "post-liberal" theologian. As far as I can tell, the focal difference between a "post-liberal" and a "post-conservative" is where you came from. I come from a conservative background, so if you called me a "post-conservative" you would mean that I was a person from a conservative background trying to move beyond the older stilted categories of conservative and liberal. A "post-liberal" is doing the same coming from the other direction.
A great quote from Frei is this: "Generosity without orthodoxy is nothing, but orthodoxy without generosity is worse than nothing" (14). I wholeheartedly agree and think all in the Wesleyan tradition should.
Here are some quotes from the foreward:
"... postmodern theory does not support the rejection of rationality but rather supports rethinking rationality in the wake of modernity" (10).
"Foundationalism refers to a conception of knowledge that emerged during the Enlightenment and sought to address the lack of certainty generated by the human tendency toward error and to overcome the inevitable, often destructive disagreements that followed... The assumptions of foundationalism, with its goal of establishing certain and universal knowledge, came to dominate intellectual pursuit in the modern era" (10-11).
I might say that I have no problem with looking for models that aim to encompass reality universally, so I am not so much opposed to the looking for universal foundations as to thinking of them as actual explanations for the world. Beyond our perceptions is only faith and mystery. But there is great usefulness in foundational language, as long as we recognize its limits.
Franke tells us that the book "maintains a focus on Jesus Christ as the center of the Christian faith" (12). I have actually heard of Christians who warn people who say such things. I understand what they mean--they see such rhetoric as a backdoor way of undercutting the Bible. But it seems obvious to me that this statement is beyond debate. As important as the Bible is, it is the word of God, while Jesus is the Word of God.
One controversial aspect of the book is apparently the possibility McLaren holds out (and Lessle Newbigin) that while the revelation in Jesus Christ is unique, it might be possible for some outside the faith to be saved (through him). This is a controversial issue. It is important to recognize that this position is not clearly heretical. It amounts to the old Wesleyan (and Quaker) sense that people will be judged according to the light they have. Beware, Wesleyans, of the extent to which your thinking has been influenced by other traditions without you/us realizing it. I take no official position myself on this issue, since I scarcely can speak with the authority of God. I can only say that I think a person with the heart of Christ would be hopeful that it is true.
Introduction and Chapter 0
Here McLaren positions the book in terms of audience. I like his style. He obviously likes G. K. Chesterton, and I can see elements of his style that mirror him. He tends to use hyperbole a lot and playfully puts himself down. In his "For Mature Audiences Only" he goes through all the reason why you might want to take the book back to the bookstore. Just to give you a sense of his style:
"Speaking of smoke, this book suggests that relativists are right in their denunciation of absolutism. It also affirms that absolutists are right in their denunciation of relativism. And then it suggests that they are both wrong because the answer lies beyond both absolutism and relativism. I'll bet that sounds like nonsense to nine of 10 readers, which should bring the words store credit to mind" (38).
At the end of Chapter 0 he assumes you have either taken the book back to the store before you got there and checked the box agreeing that you agree to put up with the strangeness of the book. Then he tells us who he is really writing the book for: people who are about to leave Christianity and spiritual seekers attracted to Jesus who don't think there's any room in Christianity for them (39).
Lots of great quotes and partial insights into McLaren's personality, but let me stick to some thoughts:
The approach of the book, "which might be called postcritical, seeks to find a way to embrace the good in many traditions and historic streams of Christian faith, and to integrate them, yielding a new, generous, emergent approach that is greater than the sum of its parts" (18).
The word emergent throws some people off. Beware again that labelology is bad thinking! You cannot logically dismiss an idea by labelling it. If there are bad things about emergent thought or some who call themselves emergent it is because there are bad things about emergent thought and about some who call themselves emergent. Labelling someone as "emergent" does not separate the good from the bad.
McClaren believes the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds (28) and "(this is so Protestant) that Scripture itself remains above the creeds and that the Holy Spirit may use Scripture to tweak our creedal understandings and emphases from time to time." He hasn't said anything that will allow you to call him unorthodox yet and certainly he has said nothing yet that a Wesleyan can object to.
This is a great postmodern statement--and it is exactly the attitude I think we should all have: "I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases" (20-21).
He quotes with approval the late Stanley Grenz quoting the late Hans Frei: "My own vision of what might be propitious for our day, split as we are, not so much into denominations as into schools of thought, is that we need a kind of generous orthodoxy which would have in it an element of liberalism...and an element of evangelicalism" (23-24). The mention of liberalism is scary, I know, but didn't the liberals of the early twentieth century pay more attention to helping the needy than the conservatives did? OK, there, I've found at least one liberal thing where they were more Christian than the conservatives. We'll have to see where McLaren takes that thought...
I should give you McLaren's somewhat unique understanding of orthodoxy. It is quite postmodern, but I think we can and should mostly go with it: "To link orthodoxy with a practice, as the previous paragraph does, further makes this book seem ridiculous because many orthodoxies have always and everywhere assumed that orthodoxy (right thinking and opinion about the gospel) and orthopraxy (right practice of the gospel) could and should be separated... In contrast... Absurdly (to some at least), this book seems to approach orthodoxy as a tool or means to achieve orthopraxy. You want to know the rules, not so you can blow whistles as a referee, but so you can have a lot of glorious good clean fun as a player, throwing passes and making assists and sinking three-pointers and layups without fouling out. In sum, this book seems orthopraxy as the point of orthodoxy--again, a concept so unorthodox as to encourage a good many readers to abandon this book right now" (30-31).
There are some American Christian traditions that are almost entirely oriented around ideas and cognitive things. Indeed, they are the power holders in neo-evangelicalism since the 40's. These are groups where "orthodoxy could be articulated and debated by scholars or officials who had little responsibility to actually live by or live out the orthodoxy they defended" (30-31). Again, as an aside to those in the Wesleyan tradition, that is not us. We have always emphasized behavior and personal piety as equally important to our ideas. Other traditions might decry McLaren on these points, but we should applaud him.
Final thought for the introductory stuff is that McLaren is obviously a pretty smart guy, no matter what he says of himself. Disagree with him we may, but it seems is heart is in the right place, and that is far more important to God than whether his head is correct on every issue... at least that's what we Wesleyans believe.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Myth: Science and Faith
I've been editing material for a philosophy book, but I've finally hit a hole where I don't have any previous material. Here is a draft for a first section of chapter 8: Science and Faith.
8.1 Myth
In the novelized introduction to philosophy, Sophie's World, the fictional "tutor" of the novel's main character tells her that a particular myth "tried to give people an explanation for something they could not understand." [1] In this casual definition of a myth, Sophie's World reflects the popular, Western understanding of ancient myths: they were basically bad science. The general feel you get is that, in this particular instance, people from Scandinavia were trying to explain why the seasons changed, so someone made up this story about a god Thor getting his hammer stolen... and then the stupid people actually believed it!
It is true that many, if not most of the ancients took these myths literally. We mentioned in the last chapter that Anaxagoras (ca. 500-428BC) was forced to leave Athens for disbelieving in the gods and instead suggesting that the sun was a very hot rock or that the moon simply reflected light. Here Anaxagoras was following in the tradition of another philosopher from Asia Minor just a bit earlier than him, Xenophanes (570-480BC).
Xenophanes thought that the portrayals of the gods in Homer and the poet Hesiod were deplorable. In their stories, the gods behaved little better than mere mortals. They became jealous, slept with other men's wives, murdered the innocent, and thus differed from everyone else simply in the fact that they were powerful enough to get away with it and live forever. He concluded that people basically portrayed gods as bigger versions of themselves. If a cow could make up gods, he suggested, they would look and act like cows with greater power to do the things cows do. Xenophanes was thus the first person we know of to suggest that people create the gods in their own image.
***
textbox: "If cattle, horses, and lions had hands, if they could draw with them and do what people do, horses would draw the gods in the shape of horses. Cattle would draw them in the shape of cattle. Each animal would give the gods bodies like their own"
Xenophanes*
"The divine being is nothing other than the human being... All the characteristics of divine nature are, therefore, characteristics of human nature."
Feuerbach (1804-72), The Essence of Christianity*.
***
Interestingly, Xenophanes did believe in a god, but to him this one god was unlike any human being. Like many of the Greek philosophers, he had a concept of an underlying power behind reality that was quite different from human beings. As Christians, we live in a tension between this tendency to picture God as being too much like us while believing at the same time that God created us in His image (Gen. 1:27). What exactly does it mean to say that humans were created like God (cf. Ps. 8)? We will discuss this issue further in chapter 9.
An entire stream of Christian thought, however, has responded to these concerns and suggested that God can primarily be known not for what he is like, which inevitably tends to portray Him in human categories, but by what he is not like. This approach to God is called negative theology or the via negativa (the "negative way"). This view of God is "apophatic," based on what we cannot say. So God is not limited in power or in knowledge or by space or time rather than to portray God in terms of human power or knowledge or space and time. This approach might say that we know God primarily by analogy to the things we can understand but recognize that God's literal ways are "beyond finding out" (**).
textbox: negative theology, Trinity
At the same time, many Christian thinkers would suggest that this way of thinking about God is not quite Christian because it fails to take into account our belief in the Trinity. Christians believe that although there is only one God with one identity and being, God is nonetheless three persons. This is not an easy idea to understand--maybe it is beyond the capacity of the human mind to understand! But it is based on the belief that there is only one God, while at the same time Jesus was God, and Jesus' heavenly Father was God, and the Holy Spirit that fills us and works within us is God. These three persons are all God and yet there is only one God. In a way, this Christian belief has the flavor of something apophatic, for it scarcely makes sense to our human reasoning. Any attempt to explain the idea almost always ends up in an idea that Christians at some point have said is not what it means.
So many Christian thinkers would suggest that our belief in the Trinity does tell us what God is actually like in His actual being. In fact, the last few decades have seen Christian thinkers explore the Trinity extensively, in particular how it might serve as a model for the way we live as Christians. Is it possible, however, that some of these explorations fall into Xenophanes' trap? For example, more than one group has recently looked to the Trinity for a model of how we might order our families. But, not surprisingly, those who already believe the man should run the house find God the Father running the Trinity, and those who believe the partners should be equal find equality in the Trinity. Perhaps even the Trinity is only an analogy for something we humans could not possibly understand on a literal level.
The rise of postmodernism in recent days has prompted some re-evaluation of the myths of ancient peoples. When science reigned supreme in Western culture, it was perhaps inevitable that we would see the ancient myths as bad science, as the poor attempts of ignorant people to explain the world the best they could. And, as we have mentioned, most of the ancients on a popular level probably did take these stories literally.
But let's return to some of what we explored in the previous chapter. Can we really get outside of our heads, beyond our perceptions of the world to the things of the world itself? Aren't my "explanations" of the world ultimately expressions of my perceptions of the world. By faith we take our perceptions as generally accurate--we don't have to abandon our faith in reality or truth. But it is an act of faith, not proof. I cannot prove that I am not a brain in a vat somewhere. It's just an idea that does not "work" very well for everyday living.
If we return to the Scandinavian myth of Thor and the changing of the seasons, in this story Thor's hammer gets stolen by another god and it becomes winter. Thor then dresses in drag and manages to get himself engaged to this other god. Then when they get together to get married, he kills the other god and spring returns.
Now as bizarre as this story is, it would not make a very good explanation for why the seasons change. After all, Thor killed the other guy. In order for it to be a good explanation, the guy would have to come alive every year and steal the hammer again. We wonder if rather than being a bad explanation for why the seasons change, if this story was more a fun and playful expression of the changing of the seasons.
Jack Finegan put it nicely when he said, "A myth is not, then, in the first instance, a fanciful tale, but a symbolic or poetic expression of that which is incapable of direct statement." [2] You can see the idea even in the similarity between the word myth and the word mystery. Certainly people will use words as they use words--we saw in chapter four that the meanings of words is a matter of how people use them. So, like it or not, the most common use of the word myth today is in reference to something that is false.
But we cannot tell the "myths" of the ancients what they were. In this case, simply thinking of them as "false stories" is to skew significantly how they functioned for the ancients. Ancient myths were stories that expressed the mysterious aspects of life. True, many ancients did raise the question of whether these stories were literally true or false. [3] And certainly there could be false myths because some of the stories may have expressed notions about life that we disagree with. But the fundamental shift from thinking of myths as explanations to expressions opens up beneficial ways for us to think about ourselves.
In particular, rather than thinking of myths as bad science, this shift leads us to think of science as very finely tuned myths! What are scientific formulas, theories, and hypotheses but sophisticated attempts to express the ways in which we perceive various things in the world to operate? The myth of Demeter and Persephone expressed the fact that the seasons change from hot to cold to hot again every year. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation expresses the pull of gravity on a falling object.
The rise of relativity and quantum mechanics in the twentieth century have pointed out that the Newtonian "myths" were not as precise as they could be. They expressed the way things behave to a certain degree. But we needed new myths to express the way things behave on the "subatomic" level. So we have mathematical stories about characters we call photons, quarks, and gluons. These are true myths not insofar as they tell us the way things really are on the "subatomic" level but insofar as they correctly express the way we perceive things to behave in certain situations.
[1] Sophie's World (New York: Berkley Books, 1991), 25.
[2] Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World (Baker) *.
[3] We have to be careful when we translate the Greek word mythos in the New Testament because it can simply mean a story. 2 Peter 1:16 uses the word to say that the Transfiguration was not a "cleverly devised story." 1 Timothy 1:4 and 4:7, as well as 2 Timothy 4:4 and Titus 1:14 refer to false stories, but they are not Greek, but apparently Jewish stories of some kind.
8.1 Myth
In the novelized introduction to philosophy, Sophie's World, the fictional "tutor" of the novel's main character tells her that a particular myth "tried to give people an explanation for something they could not understand." [1] In this casual definition of a myth, Sophie's World reflects the popular, Western understanding of ancient myths: they were basically bad science. The general feel you get is that, in this particular instance, people from Scandinavia were trying to explain why the seasons changed, so someone made up this story about a god Thor getting his hammer stolen... and then the stupid people actually believed it!
It is true that many, if not most of the ancients took these myths literally. We mentioned in the last chapter that Anaxagoras (ca. 500-428BC) was forced to leave Athens for disbelieving in the gods and instead suggesting that the sun was a very hot rock or that the moon simply reflected light. Here Anaxagoras was following in the tradition of another philosopher from Asia Minor just a bit earlier than him, Xenophanes (570-480BC).
Xenophanes thought that the portrayals of the gods in Homer and the poet Hesiod were deplorable. In their stories, the gods behaved little better than mere mortals. They became jealous, slept with other men's wives, murdered the innocent, and thus differed from everyone else simply in the fact that they were powerful enough to get away with it and live forever. He concluded that people basically portrayed gods as bigger versions of themselves. If a cow could make up gods, he suggested, they would look and act like cows with greater power to do the things cows do. Xenophanes was thus the first person we know of to suggest that people create the gods in their own image.
***
textbox: "If cattle, horses, and lions had hands, if they could draw with them and do what people do, horses would draw the gods in the shape of horses. Cattle would draw them in the shape of cattle. Each animal would give the gods bodies like their own"
Xenophanes*
"The divine being is nothing other than the human being... All the characteristics of divine nature are, therefore, characteristics of human nature."
Feuerbach (1804-72), The Essence of Christianity*.
***
Interestingly, Xenophanes did believe in a god, but to him this one god was unlike any human being. Like many of the Greek philosophers, he had a concept of an underlying power behind reality that was quite different from human beings. As Christians, we live in a tension between this tendency to picture God as being too much like us while believing at the same time that God created us in His image (Gen. 1:27). What exactly does it mean to say that humans were created like God (cf. Ps. 8)? We will discuss this issue further in chapter 9.
An entire stream of Christian thought, however, has responded to these concerns and suggested that God can primarily be known not for what he is like, which inevitably tends to portray Him in human categories, but by what he is not like. This approach to God is called negative theology or the via negativa (the "negative way"). This view of God is "apophatic," based on what we cannot say. So God is not limited in power or in knowledge or by space or time rather than to portray God in terms of human power or knowledge or space and time. This approach might say that we know God primarily by analogy to the things we can understand but recognize that God's literal ways are "beyond finding out" (**).
textbox: negative theology, Trinity
At the same time, many Christian thinkers would suggest that this way of thinking about God is not quite Christian because it fails to take into account our belief in the Trinity. Christians believe that although there is only one God with one identity and being, God is nonetheless three persons. This is not an easy idea to understand--maybe it is beyond the capacity of the human mind to understand! But it is based on the belief that there is only one God, while at the same time Jesus was God, and Jesus' heavenly Father was God, and the Holy Spirit that fills us and works within us is God. These three persons are all God and yet there is only one God. In a way, this Christian belief has the flavor of something apophatic, for it scarcely makes sense to our human reasoning. Any attempt to explain the idea almost always ends up in an idea that Christians at some point have said is not what it means.
So many Christian thinkers would suggest that our belief in the Trinity does tell us what God is actually like in His actual being. In fact, the last few decades have seen Christian thinkers explore the Trinity extensively, in particular how it might serve as a model for the way we live as Christians. Is it possible, however, that some of these explorations fall into Xenophanes' trap? For example, more than one group has recently looked to the Trinity for a model of how we might order our families. But, not surprisingly, those who already believe the man should run the house find God the Father running the Trinity, and those who believe the partners should be equal find equality in the Trinity. Perhaps even the Trinity is only an analogy for something we humans could not possibly understand on a literal level.
The rise of postmodernism in recent days has prompted some re-evaluation of the myths of ancient peoples. When science reigned supreme in Western culture, it was perhaps inevitable that we would see the ancient myths as bad science, as the poor attempts of ignorant people to explain the world the best they could. And, as we have mentioned, most of the ancients on a popular level probably did take these stories literally.
But let's return to some of what we explored in the previous chapter. Can we really get outside of our heads, beyond our perceptions of the world to the things of the world itself? Aren't my "explanations" of the world ultimately expressions of my perceptions of the world. By faith we take our perceptions as generally accurate--we don't have to abandon our faith in reality or truth. But it is an act of faith, not proof. I cannot prove that I am not a brain in a vat somewhere. It's just an idea that does not "work" very well for everyday living.
If we return to the Scandinavian myth of Thor and the changing of the seasons, in this story Thor's hammer gets stolen by another god and it becomes winter. Thor then dresses in drag and manages to get himself engaged to this other god. Then when they get together to get married, he kills the other god and spring returns.
Now as bizarre as this story is, it would not make a very good explanation for why the seasons change. After all, Thor killed the other guy. In order for it to be a good explanation, the guy would have to come alive every year and steal the hammer again. We wonder if rather than being a bad explanation for why the seasons change, if this story was more a fun and playful expression of the changing of the seasons.
Jack Finegan put it nicely when he said, "A myth is not, then, in the first instance, a fanciful tale, but a symbolic or poetic expression of that which is incapable of direct statement." [2] You can see the idea even in the similarity between the word myth and the word mystery. Certainly people will use words as they use words--we saw in chapter four that the meanings of words is a matter of how people use them. So, like it or not, the most common use of the word myth today is in reference to something that is false.
But we cannot tell the "myths" of the ancients what they were. In this case, simply thinking of them as "false stories" is to skew significantly how they functioned for the ancients. Ancient myths were stories that expressed the mysterious aspects of life. True, many ancients did raise the question of whether these stories were literally true or false. [3] And certainly there could be false myths because some of the stories may have expressed notions about life that we disagree with. But the fundamental shift from thinking of myths as explanations to expressions opens up beneficial ways for us to think about ourselves.
In particular, rather than thinking of myths as bad science, this shift leads us to think of science as very finely tuned myths! What are scientific formulas, theories, and hypotheses but sophisticated attempts to express the ways in which we perceive various things in the world to operate? The myth of Demeter and Persephone expressed the fact that the seasons change from hot to cold to hot again every year. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation expresses the pull of gravity on a falling object.
The rise of relativity and quantum mechanics in the twentieth century have pointed out that the Newtonian "myths" were not as precise as they could be. They expressed the way things behave to a certain degree. But we needed new myths to express the way things behave on the "subatomic" level. So we have mathematical stories about characters we call photons, quarks, and gluons. These are true myths not insofar as they tell us the way things really are on the "subatomic" level but insofar as they correctly express the way we perceive things to behave in certain situations.
[1] Sophie's World (New York: Berkley Books, 1991), 25.
[2] Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World (Baker) *.
[3] We have to be careful when we translate the Greek word mythos in the New Testament because it can simply mean a story. 2 Peter 1:16 uses the word to say that the Transfiguration was not a "cleverly devised story." 1 Timothy 1:4 and 4:7, as well as 2 Timothy 4:4 and Titus 1:14 refer to false stories, but they are not Greek, but apparently Jewish stories of some kind.
Monday, April 06, 2009
2.2 Getting In: The Holy Spirit
Here is the second section of a sample chapter for a possible proposal I'm thinking of making, Generous Ecclesiology.
________
So baptism in water was the most concrete way of telling whether a person was presumed “in” or “out” of the early church. Certainly attendance at a local assembly of believers pointed in this direction as well, although we can imagine un-baptized individuals being present in a local “church” who would not yet have been considered fully “in.” However, at the same time that baptism played this visible role, the early church soon conceptualized an even more important, underlying element in the entrance equation. What about someone who did not believe Jesus was the messiah but who had been baptized by John the Baptist? Were they “in” or “out”? At some point, at least some Christians came to conclude that such individuals were “out,” even though they were baptized almost exactly like the followers of Jesus. The difference was that these individuals did not have the Holy Spirit, which only could come through Jesus, not John the Baptist.
The portrayal of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 gives us an excellent picture of this understanding. The disciples have been told to wait in Jerusalem for the promised coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). John the Baptist baptized in water, but Jesus will baptize with Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16).[i] So on the Day of Pentecost, those who have believed in Jesus’ resurrection are gathered together and are “filled” with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), also called receiving the Spirit (2:38) or being “baptized” with the Holy Spirit (1:5). In Luke-Acts, this event is part of the commencement of the “last days” foretold by the prophet Joel, the age at the end of which God would restore Israel and establish his kingdom once and for all (e.g., Luke 1:68; 21:24).
Throughout the book of Acts, the coming of the Holy Spirit is the essential moment in “conversion,” as we have seen, more crucial even than baptism. If we are to use this word, conversion, we must make it very clear that—at least in the case of Jewish “converts”—we are not speaking of a change from one religion to another. When we speak of “conversion” to the Way or into the body of Jesus followers, we are talking about joining a group that understood itself as nothing other than the truest people of Israel. Ethnic Israel and its basic categories remained the foundation on which the house of God’s “elect,” his “last days” kingdom people, was built. When Paul speaks of the Gentiles coming “in” to God’s people, he thinks of them being grafted into a tree whose natural branches remain ethnic Israel (cf. Rom. 11:17-24).
Nevertheless, as we keep these things in mind, the Holy Spirit is clearly the key element of conversion in Acts, whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. Two incidents we mentioned in the first part of the chapter make the point clear. In Acts 8, some Samaritans have believed and have been baptized, but they have not yet received the Holy Spirit (8:14-17). Peter and John lay hands on them so that they will receive this most crucial element in conversion. In the thought world of Acts, it does not matter that they have been baptized, indeed that they already believe (8:12-13). They are not “in” because they have not received the Spirit. Similarly, in Acts 10, the question of whether Cornelius and the Gentiles with him can be included in God’s people and baptized is made moot by the fact that God has already poured out the Holy Spirit on them. The question of the ritual act is settled by the fact that the reality it signifies has already taken place (cf. Acts 15:8-9).
When we move beyond the presentation of Luke-Acts, we find a very similar theology of the Holy Spirit in relation to becoming a true “child of God” and a true member of God’s people. Paul does not consider anyone—Jew or Gentile—to be one of the elect, a true descendant of Abraham, part of the body of Christ and a member of God’s true Israel, unless they have the Spirit. “If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (8:14). “You have received the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry, ‘Abba, Father’” (8:15).
Similarly, Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as the arrabōn of what is to come, God’s “seal” on us that shows he is our owner (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; cf. Eph. 1:13-14). An arrabōn was like the earnest money someone puts down on a house. It is both a guarantee that makes it clear you are going to buy the house and a deposit toward buying the house. The sense is thus that the Holy Spirit is both a guarantee that believers will receive the inheritance of the kingdom, while providing a spiritual deposit of what that kingdom will be like. When we compare what Paul has to say about the Spirit with what he has to say in his writings about water baptism, there is simply no comparison. The Spirit is the primary element.
The anonymous book of Hebrews similarly presupposes that true membership among the descendants of Abraham (cf. 2:16) entails partaking and tasting of the Holy Spirit (6:4-5). We should not think of such tasting as merely dabbling any more than Jesus “tasting” death was a mere flirtation with death (2:9). As problematic as Hebrews 6:4-8 may be to us, we can be sure that Hebrews understands those who fall away at one time to have been full members of God’s people.
But what did this experience look like, and what would it then look like today? In Acts, the coming of the Spirit is frequently depicted in dramatic terms, with miracles and tongues often accompanying. Paul and Hebrews also imply that wonders often served as ratification of the Spirit’s presence (e.g., Gal. 3:1-5; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4). Are we to think, though, that everyone in the early church who was understood to have the Spirit experienced some dramatic manifestation of the Spirit’s coming? It does not seem likely. While we hear of many dramatic conversions, the New Testament is silent about such manifestations in relation to the vast majority of the early believers. Paul speaks of the Spirit witnessing with our Spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16), which might imply only a calm sense of assurance.
When we ask today, almost two thousand years later, what receiving the Spirit might look like, at first the answer seems straightforward. Regardless of when you were baptized, you receive the Spirit after you repent of your sins and confess faith in Jesus as Lord. Thereafter the Spirit “fills” you—as God sees fit.[ii] Acts 2:38 captures this sense well when Peter tells the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Although it is probably fair to say that most Christian traditions do not focus much on the Holy Spirit at all, we still find significant disagreements among different Christian groups on their official positions. For example, perhaps most Christian traditions associate the timing of the Spirit with the timing of baptism more closely than we would argue the New Testament would necessarily warrant. Although in many respects they are on opposite ends of the church spectrum, both the Roman Catholic Church and some forms of the Christian Church would so associate baptism with receiving the Spirit that one’s salvation is in deep trouble without it. The first baptizes infants, the second only adults, but both see baptism as essential to receiving the Spirit to where the soul of an un-baptized person is in serious danger regardless of any confession of faith they might have made.
The United Pentecostal Church is a fascinating example of a group that sees baptism as essential to getting in and links receiving the Spirit closely with baptism. But its real uniqueness comes in that it considers speaking in tongues the sign that a person has received the Spirit and insists that baptism can only take place in the name of Jesus alone, since this group does not believe in the Trinity. Thus a person who does not speak in tongues or who has not been baptized in this way has a dubious claim to be a Christian. Other Pentecostal and holiness groups have considered the Day of Pentecost a model not for conversion but for a second experience as a Christian. But even these groups usually have a place for receiving the Spirit in some sense at conversion as well.
The question of those Christian groups that baptize infants is a tricky one as well. Such groups usually associate receiving the Spirit officially with baptism, even though the child is obviously unable to make a confession of faith or repentance. Although the first impression of many is simply to dismiss this idea out of hand, we remember that in Luke 1:15 John the Baptist is filled with the Spirit even before he is born. Luke-Acts makes no clear distinction between this filling with the Spirit and the baptism with the Spirit in Acts 2. The clear implication is that the author of Luke does not see repentance and confession necessary for an unborn child to be filled with the Spirit. We thus cannot make a clear theological objection to the idea that baptized infants might receive the Spirit at that time, at least not biblically. Certainly it is biblical to expect that such a person will also need to appropriate Christ as Lord and as their means of atonement later in life.
When the smoke clears from the disagreements between different Christian traditions, we are still left with potential common ground. On the one hand, the absolute necessity that a person have the Holy Spirit in order to belong to God’s people remains. We also find the strong common sense of Christendom and the Bible that receiving the Holy Spirit is closely associated with baptism. It is appropriate for us to maintain this association as long as we do not insist that a person must be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and recognize the need for a person to maintain the presence of the Holy Spirit to the end of one’s life. Whether a person was baptized as an infant or adult, the Spirit must nevertheless be present till death if one is to be "saved."
[i] The Gospel of John preserves this same thinking when Jesus says, “If I go away, I will send him [the Holy Spirit] to you” (John 16:7-11).
[ii] We remember that at Samaria the Spirit filling was not immediate and, theologically, we probably want to give God the final say as to when a person actually receives the Spirit, rather than making conversion a matter of some formula that we as mortals can effect whenever we want.
________
So baptism in water was the most concrete way of telling whether a person was presumed “in” or “out” of the early church. Certainly attendance at a local assembly of believers pointed in this direction as well, although we can imagine un-baptized individuals being present in a local “church” who would not yet have been considered fully “in.” However, at the same time that baptism played this visible role, the early church soon conceptualized an even more important, underlying element in the entrance equation. What about someone who did not believe Jesus was the messiah but who had been baptized by John the Baptist? Were they “in” or “out”? At some point, at least some Christians came to conclude that such individuals were “out,” even though they were baptized almost exactly like the followers of Jesus. The difference was that these individuals did not have the Holy Spirit, which only could come through Jesus, not John the Baptist.
The portrayal of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 gives us an excellent picture of this understanding. The disciples have been told to wait in Jerusalem for the promised coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). John the Baptist baptized in water, but Jesus will baptize with Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16).[i] So on the Day of Pentecost, those who have believed in Jesus’ resurrection are gathered together and are “filled” with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), also called receiving the Spirit (2:38) or being “baptized” with the Holy Spirit (1:5). In Luke-Acts, this event is part of the commencement of the “last days” foretold by the prophet Joel, the age at the end of which God would restore Israel and establish his kingdom once and for all (e.g., Luke 1:68; 21:24).
Throughout the book of Acts, the coming of the Holy Spirit is the essential moment in “conversion,” as we have seen, more crucial even than baptism. If we are to use this word, conversion, we must make it very clear that—at least in the case of Jewish “converts”—we are not speaking of a change from one religion to another. When we speak of “conversion” to the Way or into the body of Jesus followers, we are talking about joining a group that understood itself as nothing other than the truest people of Israel. Ethnic Israel and its basic categories remained the foundation on which the house of God’s “elect,” his “last days” kingdom people, was built. When Paul speaks of the Gentiles coming “in” to God’s people, he thinks of them being grafted into a tree whose natural branches remain ethnic Israel (cf. Rom. 11:17-24).
Nevertheless, as we keep these things in mind, the Holy Spirit is clearly the key element of conversion in Acts, whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. Two incidents we mentioned in the first part of the chapter make the point clear. In Acts 8, some Samaritans have believed and have been baptized, but they have not yet received the Holy Spirit (8:14-17). Peter and John lay hands on them so that they will receive this most crucial element in conversion. In the thought world of Acts, it does not matter that they have been baptized, indeed that they already believe (8:12-13). They are not “in” because they have not received the Spirit. Similarly, in Acts 10, the question of whether Cornelius and the Gentiles with him can be included in God’s people and baptized is made moot by the fact that God has already poured out the Holy Spirit on them. The question of the ritual act is settled by the fact that the reality it signifies has already taken place (cf. Acts 15:8-9).
When we move beyond the presentation of Luke-Acts, we find a very similar theology of the Holy Spirit in relation to becoming a true “child of God” and a true member of God’s people. Paul does not consider anyone—Jew or Gentile—to be one of the elect, a true descendant of Abraham, part of the body of Christ and a member of God’s true Israel, unless they have the Spirit. “If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (8:14). “You have received the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry, ‘Abba, Father’” (8:15).
Similarly, Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as the arrabōn of what is to come, God’s “seal” on us that shows he is our owner (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; cf. Eph. 1:13-14). An arrabōn was like the earnest money someone puts down on a house. It is both a guarantee that makes it clear you are going to buy the house and a deposit toward buying the house. The sense is thus that the Holy Spirit is both a guarantee that believers will receive the inheritance of the kingdom, while providing a spiritual deposit of what that kingdom will be like. When we compare what Paul has to say about the Spirit with what he has to say in his writings about water baptism, there is simply no comparison. The Spirit is the primary element.
The anonymous book of Hebrews similarly presupposes that true membership among the descendants of Abraham (cf. 2:16) entails partaking and tasting of the Holy Spirit (6:4-5). We should not think of such tasting as merely dabbling any more than Jesus “tasting” death was a mere flirtation with death (2:9). As problematic as Hebrews 6:4-8 may be to us, we can be sure that Hebrews understands those who fall away at one time to have been full members of God’s people.
But what did this experience look like, and what would it then look like today? In Acts, the coming of the Spirit is frequently depicted in dramatic terms, with miracles and tongues often accompanying. Paul and Hebrews also imply that wonders often served as ratification of the Spirit’s presence (e.g., Gal. 3:1-5; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4). Are we to think, though, that everyone in the early church who was understood to have the Spirit experienced some dramatic manifestation of the Spirit’s coming? It does not seem likely. While we hear of many dramatic conversions, the New Testament is silent about such manifestations in relation to the vast majority of the early believers. Paul speaks of the Spirit witnessing with our Spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16), which might imply only a calm sense of assurance.
When we ask today, almost two thousand years later, what receiving the Spirit might look like, at first the answer seems straightforward. Regardless of when you were baptized, you receive the Spirit after you repent of your sins and confess faith in Jesus as Lord. Thereafter the Spirit “fills” you—as God sees fit.[ii] Acts 2:38 captures this sense well when Peter tells the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, “Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Although it is probably fair to say that most Christian traditions do not focus much on the Holy Spirit at all, we still find significant disagreements among different Christian groups on their official positions. For example, perhaps most Christian traditions associate the timing of the Spirit with the timing of baptism more closely than we would argue the New Testament would necessarily warrant. Although in many respects they are on opposite ends of the church spectrum, both the Roman Catholic Church and some forms of the Christian Church would so associate baptism with receiving the Spirit that one’s salvation is in deep trouble without it. The first baptizes infants, the second only adults, but both see baptism as essential to receiving the Spirit to where the soul of an un-baptized person is in serious danger regardless of any confession of faith they might have made.
The United Pentecostal Church is a fascinating example of a group that sees baptism as essential to getting in and links receiving the Spirit closely with baptism. But its real uniqueness comes in that it considers speaking in tongues the sign that a person has received the Spirit and insists that baptism can only take place in the name of Jesus alone, since this group does not believe in the Trinity. Thus a person who does not speak in tongues or who has not been baptized in this way has a dubious claim to be a Christian. Other Pentecostal and holiness groups have considered the Day of Pentecost a model not for conversion but for a second experience as a Christian. But even these groups usually have a place for receiving the Spirit in some sense at conversion as well.
The question of those Christian groups that baptize infants is a tricky one as well. Such groups usually associate receiving the Spirit officially with baptism, even though the child is obviously unable to make a confession of faith or repentance. Although the first impression of many is simply to dismiss this idea out of hand, we remember that in Luke 1:15 John the Baptist is filled with the Spirit even before he is born. Luke-Acts makes no clear distinction between this filling with the Spirit and the baptism with the Spirit in Acts 2. The clear implication is that the author of Luke does not see repentance and confession necessary for an unborn child to be filled with the Spirit. We thus cannot make a clear theological objection to the idea that baptized infants might receive the Spirit at that time, at least not biblically. Certainly it is biblical to expect that such a person will also need to appropriate Christ as Lord and as their means of atonement later in life.
When the smoke clears from the disagreements between different Christian traditions, we are still left with potential common ground. On the one hand, the absolute necessity that a person have the Holy Spirit in order to belong to God’s people remains. We also find the strong common sense of Christendom and the Bible that receiving the Holy Spirit is closely associated with baptism. It is appropriate for us to maintain this association as long as we do not insist that a person must be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and recognize the need for a person to maintain the presence of the Holy Spirit to the end of one’s life. Whether a person was baptized as an infant or adult, the Spirit must nevertheless be present till death if one is to be "saved."
[i] The Gospel of John preserves this same thinking when Jesus says, “If I go away, I will send him [the Holy Spirit] to you” (John 16:7-11).
[ii] We remember that at Samaria the Spirit filling was not immediate and, theologically, we probably want to give God the final say as to when a person actually receives the Spirit, rather than making conversion a matter of some formula that we as mortals can effect whenever we want.
Passion Week in Luke: Monday
Since Mark has Jesus' disputes with others on Tuesday, I will skip today in Luke. Mark has Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple on Monday, but both Luke and Matthew have it on Sunday. Luke's account of the temple "cleansing" is a little shorter than the others, but is substantially the same.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Paul Novel: Galatians 5
Paul did not win the day at Antioch. The church at Antioch would struggle with a degree of "segregation" between Jewish and Gentile believer for the next thirty years, although many Gentiles did conform to the new expectations. It largely remained this way until the destruction of Jerusalem prompted some significant reassessment of the issue and the power shifted among believers in the city. Even then, some of the more conservative elements in the city continued separate until they finally disappeared into history without heir.
Barnabas tried to reconcile with Paul, but Paul saw Barnabas' submission to the thinking of Jerusalem as an obstacle to the gospel. The disagreement finally came to a head over John Mark. Both Paul and Barnabas agreed that they should return to the churches they had planted on their previous journey, starting with Cyprus and continuing into Pisidia and Lycaonia as before.
But Paul refused to take John Mark. It was enough that Barnabas disagreed with him on some major issues. But Paul considered Mark a backstabber who had helped catalyze the current crisis. No, it was no Mark or no way. When Barnabas would not concede, they agreed to divide up the area of their previous journey and go their separate ways.
Paul immediately knew who to take with him. Silas had been one of the few who had agreed with Paul over and against the decision of the Jerusalem church. He had already mentioned many times how much he wished he had been with Paul and Barnabas on the first mission. He was a leatherworker like Paul. Paul decided it was clearly God's will, and Silas agreed.
We have already mentioned much of what happened those next five years. They revisited Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, as well as Antioch in Pisidia. Timothy joined the mission in Lystra. Titus would have come with them too from the beginning, but he was not quite old enough yet. He would meet up them several years later when he was old enough.
Paul became sick and spent the better part of a year in northern Galatia, an unplanned year that nevertheless brought the gospel to the environs of Ancyra. Then they founded churches in Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth. Paul spent almost two years in Corinth.
Then he shipwrecked off the coast of Crete on his way to Jerusalem and ended up spending the better part of another year here and there--including Galatia again. Finally he settled down in Ephesus for a ministry of several years in that city. He was imprisoned for a short while during his first year, then visited a number of churches in the eastern part of Asia, places like Colossae and Laodicea. He also made an emergency trip to Corinth after he returned to Ephesus.
Despite all these challenges, nothing thus far had been as difficult as the news that he had just received from Galatia. He knew the culprit, a man named Phineas from Antioch. He was a Jewish teacher who not only had stood against Paul in the Antioch argument. He had spoken strongly against James for being too soft on the Gentiles. Unless they were willing to go all the way and get circumcised, they showed that Jesus wasn't really their Lord and master. Unless they were willing to give up everything, they didn't understand what it really meant to serve God as king!
Barnabas tried to reconcile with Paul, but Paul saw Barnabas' submission to the thinking of Jerusalem as an obstacle to the gospel. The disagreement finally came to a head over John Mark. Both Paul and Barnabas agreed that they should return to the churches they had planted on their previous journey, starting with Cyprus and continuing into Pisidia and Lycaonia as before.
But Paul refused to take John Mark. It was enough that Barnabas disagreed with him on some major issues. But Paul considered Mark a backstabber who had helped catalyze the current crisis. No, it was no Mark or no way. When Barnabas would not concede, they agreed to divide up the area of their previous journey and go their separate ways.
Paul immediately knew who to take with him. Silas had been one of the few who had agreed with Paul over and against the decision of the Jerusalem church. He had already mentioned many times how much he wished he had been with Paul and Barnabas on the first mission. He was a leatherworker like Paul. Paul decided it was clearly God's will, and Silas agreed.
We have already mentioned much of what happened those next five years. They revisited Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, as well as Antioch in Pisidia. Timothy joined the mission in Lystra. Titus would have come with them too from the beginning, but he was not quite old enough yet. He would meet up them several years later when he was old enough.
Paul became sick and spent the better part of a year in northern Galatia, an unplanned year that nevertheless brought the gospel to the environs of Ancyra. Then they founded churches in Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth. Paul spent almost two years in Corinth.
Then he shipwrecked off the coast of Crete on his way to Jerusalem and ended up spending the better part of another year here and there--including Galatia again. Finally he settled down in Ephesus for a ministry of several years in that city. He was imprisoned for a short while during his first year, then visited a number of churches in the eastern part of Asia, places like Colossae and Laodicea. He also made an emergency trip to Corinth after he returned to Ephesus.
Despite all these challenges, nothing thus far had been as difficult as the news that he had just received from Galatia. He knew the culprit, a man named Phineas from Antioch. He was a Jewish teacher who not only had stood against Paul in the Antioch argument. He had spoken strongly against James for being too soft on the Gentiles. Unless they were willing to go all the way and get circumcised, they showed that Jesus wasn't really their Lord and master. Unless they were willing to give up everything, they didn't understand what it really meant to serve God as king!
Passion Week in Luke: Palm Sunday (19:28-48)
Looking for unique features to Luke’s presentation of Palm Sunday, one is that some Pharisees tell Jesus to rebuke his followers for calling him "king." Jesus says that if they didn’t, the rocks would cry out. Luke has changed Mark's "Blessed is he who comes" to "Blessed is the king who comes."
Luke also uniquely mentions Jesus weeping over Jerusalem as he nears the city and has a prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction--something that would have been particularly meaningful to Luke’s audience since Luke probably was written after the temple’s destruction.
Luke also uniquely mentions Jesus weeping over Jerusalem as he nears the city and has a prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction--something that would have been particularly meaningful to Luke’s audience since Luke probably was written after the temple’s destruction.
Friday, April 03, 2009
THE WESLEYAN CHURCH HAS A SEMINARY!
The Board of Trustees of Indiana Wesleyan University today unanimously approved the founding of a Wesleyan seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University!
It had already approved the offering of an MDIV and we had received accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission. We will now, however, house that MDIV within a new seminary that will, Lord willing, have its own building in the next three years.
None of the criticisms of seminaries apply to this new seminary:
1. You don't have to move somewhere for three years.
In fact, you don't have to move at all. You can do the degree in four years (three in an accelerated format) mostly online while coming to campus for two weeks a year in August.
2. You have to be at least part time on staff at a church (20 hours a week).
So gone are the criticisms of impractical, ivory tower learning away from the real world. You're taking your church to seminary. And if you mess up, it's not a grade on the line but your job.
3. Spiritual formation is wed to practical and theoretical formation.
Each semester is accompanied with a 1 hour spiritual formation course that makes sure you are not emptying your heart while you are filling your head.
4. Bible, theology, and church history are integrated with the practice of ministry.
The Donatists--who were they? I bet most seminary students don't remember or care. In this curriculum, you'll learn about them while studying how to handle church splits.
5. When you take into account scholarships, it will be one of the cheapest seminaries around--especially for Wesleyans.
We've already accepted our first students. It's looking good already to fill up the 30+ spots we have allotted for the first cohorts this Fall.
Interested? Email: nathan.lamb@indwes.edu
It had already approved the offering of an MDIV and we had received accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission. We will now, however, house that MDIV within a new seminary that will, Lord willing, have its own building in the next three years.
None of the criticisms of seminaries apply to this new seminary:
1. You don't have to move somewhere for three years.
In fact, you don't have to move at all. You can do the degree in four years (three in an accelerated format) mostly online while coming to campus for two weeks a year in August.
2. You have to be at least part time on staff at a church (20 hours a week).
So gone are the criticisms of impractical, ivory tower learning away from the real world. You're taking your church to seminary. And if you mess up, it's not a grade on the line but your job.
3. Spiritual formation is wed to practical and theoretical formation.
Each semester is accompanied with a 1 hour spiritual formation course that makes sure you are not emptying your heart while you are filling your head.
4. Bible, theology, and church history are integrated with the practice of ministry.
The Donatists--who were they? I bet most seminary students don't remember or care. In this curriculum, you'll learn about them while studying how to handle church splits.
5. When you take into account scholarships, it will be one of the cheapest seminaries around--especially for Wesleyans.
We've already accepted our first students. It's looking good already to fill up the 30+ spots we have allotted for the first cohorts this Fall.
Interested? Email: nathan.lamb@indwes.edu
2.1 Getting In: Baptism
If I were to write A Generous Ecclesiology, here is what I picture as the first section of chapter 2, "Getting In: Baptism and Other Things":
We have every reason to believe that baptism in water was the most concrete way among the early Christians to tell whether a person belonged to “the Way” or not. “The Way” was apparently one of the earliest designations for the Jesus movement (e.g., Acts 9:2), although it is at least possible that some Jews considered themselves followers of the Way without specifically believing that Jesus was indeed the Jewish messiah. We at least wonder about this possibility because John the Baptist apparently preached “the way of the Lord” in conjunction with his baptism, and we find hints in the book of Acts and the Gospel of John that there were Way followers of the Baptist’s sort who were not Jesus followers.
It may be worthwhile to flesh out this idea just a little. We hear of an incident at the city of Ephesus in Acts 19 where there were followers of the teaching of John the Baptist who had been baptized accordingly (19:1-7).[i] In the story of Acts, Paul does not consider this baptism sufficient to be “in” the Christian group. He has them baptized again in the name of Jesus and they receive the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Gospel of John portrays Jesus’ interaction with John the Baptist in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus’ presence immediately made that of John the Baptist obsolete (e.g., 3:30). The Gospel does not even mention that Jesus was baptized by John, and it alone has Jesus ministering at the same time as John the Baptist was still baptizing (3:22-24).[ii]
A very plausible explanation of these things is that, at the very first, baptism of the sort John the Baptist practiced was sufficient to be a part of the Jesus movement. Some followers of “the way of the Lord” came to believe that Jesus was in fact the messiah John the Baptist had foretold. At the same time, others may not have been convinced or may have lived in the Diaspora where they had only heard of the Baptist’s message. For example, we have no evidence that any of the twelve disciples were ever re-baptized in the name of Jesus, while they presumably were baptized as part of John’s movement. In time, however, it may have become more and more necessary to distinguish the baptism of John the Baptist from baptism in the name of Jesus.
If we are to follow the book of Acts, baptism took place as soon as a person believed. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is perhaps the best illustration. As soon as the Ethiopian believed, he thinks of baptism and suggests he be baptized in water immediately (8:36). The clear impression we get is that Philip presented water baptism as a very important element in the process of getting “in” the Christian group and that it was the next step in the process, if not the first.
At the same time, we have no clear evidence that the early Christians were obsessed with baptism. For example, the book of Acts focuses far more on receiving the Holy Spirit as the key element of the “entry process” far more than baptism. The baptism of Simon Magus and the Samaritans was insignificant because they had not received the Spirit (Acts 8:9-17). Meanwhile, baptism is a kind of “after the fact” recognition of something the Holy Spirit has already done for Cornelius in Acts 10:47. Paul strangely baptized only two or three households in the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-17), making us wonder who baptized the others. He almost trivializes the act when he says that "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the good news" (1 Cor. 1:17). We get the impression that, as central and important as the act of baptism apparently was in some parts of the early church, it represented something else that was more significant than the act itself.
When we move from the early church to the variety of practices among Christians today, we need to keep several things in mind that we mentioned in the first chapter. For example, it is not clear that we have to do everything in exactly the same way that the earliest Christians did. Indeed, there was some variety of practice among the early Christians themselves. Similarly, we do not want to get certain practices out of focus by making various elements in the equation more significant than they were.
Did the earliest Christians baptize by immersion? It is quite possible that they did. The baptismal pools (miqvaot) in Palestine at the time certainly were large enough for immersion. Paul’s comment about being “buried” with Christ in baptism would not have to refer to immersion in water (Rom. 6:4), but it would be particularly meaningful if it did. Yet we are really reading between the lines here.
If baptism by immersion were really as important to God for the later church as some groups make it, we might have expected God to inspire some statement to that effect in Scripture. The early Christian writing called the Didache is very practical about the matter. If cold, running water is available, baptize in it. If not, then in warm water. In a pinch, though, pour water over the head. The key is that a person be baptized—not how a person is baptized. The evidence from the early church gives us no basis to be rigid about how baptism must take place.
Those groups that emphasize baptism as soon as possible after believing in Christ seem to come closest to the original idea of baptism as a concrete embodiment of what God was doing or had done in relation to a person’s sins. However, the New Testament never teaches that it is the act of baptism itself that “saves” a person. It is true that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks of baptism “saving” believers, but this is a figure of speech.[iii] 1 Peter 3 itself indicates that it is not the physical washing but the cleansing of sins that is the operative element in the equation. So while those churches that do not baptize immediately vary somewhat from the practice of the early church, it is not clear that we can condemn their practice for that reason.
More problematic are those groups that do not baptize at all (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army). These groups represent the working out of the Protestant rejection of "empty ritualism" to its furthest extreme. Of course we find an increasing recognition today that ritual is quite often far from an empty activity, indeed that in many respects it relates to aspects of the human psyche that go much deeper than surface level thoughts or ideas. Nevertheless, what can we say to our Christian brothers and sisters who seem to have abandoned one of the central elements of early Christian conversion?
We can probably say that while they are missing a potentially powerful moment in Christian life with a heritage going back not least to Jesus, they correctly understand that the essence of being “in” is something deeper than the act of baptism. Following through with the character of God as we believe it to be, we believe that God will indeed accept these brothers and sisters because, like the uncircumcised and un-baptized Cornelius of Acts 10, they have received the Holy Spirit.
The question of infant baptism also requires us to go beyond any clear statement in the New Testament either in favor or against. It is true that all the explicit evidence of the New Testament describes the baptism of adults, all of whom presumably repent and confess faith in the Lordship of Jesus as Christ prior to baptism. At the same time, we are never told that the children of households whose fathers or mothers confess faith were not baptized. Individuals in the ancient Mediterranean formulated their identities more in terms of the groups to which they belonged than as a function of their individual decisions. It is at least conceivable that a father or mother would decide for their child (cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 7:14). We have no evidence that can be decisive either way.
What we find is that while the practices of some Christian groups today are closer or farther from early Christian practice, we have no basis to exclude any group from the church because of how they do or do not baptize. We also may believe ourselves to have a good basis to critique the theology behind certain baptismal practices. But as we suggested in the first chapter, God is much more concerned with our hearts and how they lead to life than with the particulars of what we think.
So some groups baptize one way and other groups another way. From the standpoint of the New Testament, it is not an issue. Some groups baptize soon after confessing faith. Some wait some time. Some baptize infants. Some do not baptize at all. Since it is not the baptism in water that actually saves us, these are not issues that should be central to our faith. Each practice seems to have strengths, and each seems to have weaknesses. Those who do not baptize their children create a climate in which those whom God already accepts are not symbolically “in” the church. Their bodies are in the church, but they are like outsiders in our midst. Those who are baptized as children miss out on the power of remembering their baptismal experience.
Those who do not baptize at all miss out on the power of the act and on communion with the saints all the way back to Jesus. At the same time, they are perhaps more conscious than many of the need for an individual interaction with God in repentance and faith. Those who put too much emphasis on the act of water baptism itself may thereby forget the spiritual reality that is what it is ultimately all about. Those that delay baptism until a person can be fully informed of the faith to which they are assenting have the strength of a baptism that takes place with a fullness of understanding.
We will never convert all the Christians who do it differently to agree with us. But it is not necessary for us to try. Baptism is an issue about which we can be generous in our ecclesiology. We may disagree, but the person who argues to the death over such things is far more likely to miss out on the kingdom for their attitude than the person who perhaps baptizes differently from the early church or from the common practice of the later church.
[i] Apollos also in Acts 18:24-26 is someone who had believed in John the Baptist’s message but was apparently not acquainted with the Jesus movement that grew out of John’s ministry.
[ii] In this respect it is interesting to observe that the Gospel of John is traditionally associated with Ephesus, where Acts mentions followers of John the Baptist. It seems quite possible that the city of Ephesus was home to members of the Baptist’s movement who were not Jesus followers.
[iii] It is a metonymy, when something closely associated with something is substituted for it. If someone is known for a certain hat and I say, “Here comes the hat,” the hat substitutes for the person with which it is closely associated. Baptism is thus so closely associated with the actual cleansing of a person’s sins that it is substituted for the cleansing itself.
We have every reason to believe that baptism in water was the most concrete way among the early Christians to tell whether a person belonged to “the Way” or not. “The Way” was apparently one of the earliest designations for the Jesus movement (e.g., Acts 9:2), although it is at least possible that some Jews considered themselves followers of the Way without specifically believing that Jesus was indeed the Jewish messiah. We at least wonder about this possibility because John the Baptist apparently preached “the way of the Lord” in conjunction with his baptism, and we find hints in the book of Acts and the Gospel of John that there were Way followers of the Baptist’s sort who were not Jesus followers.
It may be worthwhile to flesh out this idea just a little. We hear of an incident at the city of Ephesus in Acts 19 where there were followers of the teaching of John the Baptist who had been baptized accordingly (19:1-7).[i] In the story of Acts, Paul does not consider this baptism sufficient to be “in” the Christian group. He has them baptized again in the name of Jesus and they receive the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Gospel of John portrays Jesus’ interaction with John the Baptist in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus’ presence immediately made that of John the Baptist obsolete (e.g., 3:30). The Gospel does not even mention that Jesus was baptized by John, and it alone has Jesus ministering at the same time as John the Baptist was still baptizing (3:22-24).[ii]
A very plausible explanation of these things is that, at the very first, baptism of the sort John the Baptist practiced was sufficient to be a part of the Jesus movement. Some followers of “the way of the Lord” came to believe that Jesus was in fact the messiah John the Baptist had foretold. At the same time, others may not have been convinced or may have lived in the Diaspora where they had only heard of the Baptist’s message. For example, we have no evidence that any of the twelve disciples were ever re-baptized in the name of Jesus, while they presumably were baptized as part of John’s movement. In time, however, it may have become more and more necessary to distinguish the baptism of John the Baptist from baptism in the name of Jesus.
If we are to follow the book of Acts, baptism took place as soon as a person believed. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is perhaps the best illustration. As soon as the Ethiopian believed, he thinks of baptism and suggests he be baptized in water immediately (8:36). The clear impression we get is that Philip presented water baptism as a very important element in the process of getting “in” the Christian group and that it was the next step in the process, if not the first.
At the same time, we have no clear evidence that the early Christians were obsessed with baptism. For example, the book of Acts focuses far more on receiving the Holy Spirit as the key element of the “entry process” far more than baptism. The baptism of Simon Magus and the Samaritans was insignificant because they had not received the Spirit (Acts 8:9-17). Meanwhile, baptism is a kind of “after the fact” recognition of something the Holy Spirit has already done for Cornelius in Acts 10:47. Paul strangely baptized only two or three households in the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-17), making us wonder who baptized the others. He almost trivializes the act when he says that "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the good news" (1 Cor. 1:17). We get the impression that, as central and important as the act of baptism apparently was in some parts of the early church, it represented something else that was more significant than the act itself.
When we move from the early church to the variety of practices among Christians today, we need to keep several things in mind that we mentioned in the first chapter. For example, it is not clear that we have to do everything in exactly the same way that the earliest Christians did. Indeed, there was some variety of practice among the early Christians themselves. Similarly, we do not want to get certain practices out of focus by making various elements in the equation more significant than they were.
Did the earliest Christians baptize by immersion? It is quite possible that they did. The baptismal pools (miqvaot) in Palestine at the time certainly were large enough for immersion. Paul’s comment about being “buried” with Christ in baptism would not have to refer to immersion in water (Rom. 6:4), but it would be particularly meaningful if it did. Yet we are really reading between the lines here.
If baptism by immersion were really as important to God for the later church as some groups make it, we might have expected God to inspire some statement to that effect in Scripture. The early Christian writing called the Didache is very practical about the matter. If cold, running water is available, baptize in it. If not, then in warm water. In a pinch, though, pour water over the head. The key is that a person be baptized—not how a person is baptized. The evidence from the early church gives us no basis to be rigid about how baptism must take place.
Those groups that emphasize baptism as soon as possible after believing in Christ seem to come closest to the original idea of baptism as a concrete embodiment of what God was doing or had done in relation to a person’s sins. However, the New Testament never teaches that it is the act of baptism itself that “saves” a person. It is true that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks of baptism “saving” believers, but this is a figure of speech.[iii] 1 Peter 3 itself indicates that it is not the physical washing but the cleansing of sins that is the operative element in the equation. So while those churches that do not baptize immediately vary somewhat from the practice of the early church, it is not clear that we can condemn their practice for that reason.
More problematic are those groups that do not baptize at all (e.g., Quakers, Salvation Army). These groups represent the working out of the Protestant rejection of "empty ritualism" to its furthest extreme. Of course we find an increasing recognition today that ritual is quite often far from an empty activity, indeed that in many respects it relates to aspects of the human psyche that go much deeper than surface level thoughts or ideas. Nevertheless, what can we say to our Christian brothers and sisters who seem to have abandoned one of the central elements of early Christian conversion?
We can probably say that while they are missing a potentially powerful moment in Christian life with a heritage going back not least to Jesus, they correctly understand that the essence of being “in” is something deeper than the act of baptism. Following through with the character of God as we believe it to be, we believe that God will indeed accept these brothers and sisters because, like the uncircumcised and un-baptized Cornelius of Acts 10, they have received the Holy Spirit.
The question of infant baptism also requires us to go beyond any clear statement in the New Testament either in favor or against. It is true that all the explicit evidence of the New Testament describes the baptism of adults, all of whom presumably repent and confess faith in the Lordship of Jesus as Christ prior to baptism. At the same time, we are never told that the children of households whose fathers or mothers confess faith were not baptized. Individuals in the ancient Mediterranean formulated their identities more in terms of the groups to which they belonged than as a function of their individual decisions. It is at least conceivable that a father or mother would decide for their child (cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 7:14). We have no evidence that can be decisive either way.
What we find is that while the practices of some Christian groups today are closer or farther from early Christian practice, we have no basis to exclude any group from the church because of how they do or do not baptize. We also may believe ourselves to have a good basis to critique the theology behind certain baptismal practices. But as we suggested in the first chapter, God is much more concerned with our hearts and how they lead to life than with the particulars of what we think.
So some groups baptize one way and other groups another way. From the standpoint of the New Testament, it is not an issue. Some groups baptize soon after confessing faith. Some wait some time. Some baptize infants. Some do not baptize at all. Since it is not the baptism in water that actually saves us, these are not issues that should be central to our faith. Each practice seems to have strengths, and each seems to have weaknesses. Those who do not baptize their children create a climate in which those whom God already accepts are not symbolically “in” the church. Their bodies are in the church, but they are like outsiders in our midst. Those who are baptized as children miss out on the power of remembering their baptismal experience.
Those who do not baptize at all miss out on the power of the act and on communion with the saints all the way back to Jesus. At the same time, they are perhaps more conscious than many of the need for an individual interaction with God in repentance and faith. Those who put too much emphasis on the act of water baptism itself may thereby forget the spiritual reality that is what it is ultimately all about. Those that delay baptism until a person can be fully informed of the faith to which they are assenting have the strength of a baptism that takes place with a fullness of understanding.
We will never convert all the Christians who do it differently to agree with us. But it is not necessary for us to try. Baptism is an issue about which we can be generous in our ecclesiology. We may disagree, but the person who argues to the death over such things is far more likely to miss out on the kingdom for their attitude than the person who perhaps baptizes differently from the early church or from the common practice of the later church.
[i] Apollos also in Acts 18:24-26 is someone who had believed in John the Baptist’s message but was apparently not acquainted with the Jesus movement that grew out of John’s ministry.
[ii] In this respect it is interesting to observe that the Gospel of John is traditionally associated with Ephesus, where Acts mentions followers of John the Baptist. It seems quite possible that the city of Ephesus was home to members of the Baptist’s movement who were not Jesus followers.
[iii] It is a metonymy, when something closely associated with something is substituted for it. If someone is known for a certain hat and I say, “Here comes the hat,” the hat substitutes for the person with which it is closely associated. Baptism is thus so closely associated with the actual cleansing of a person’s sins that it is substituted for the cleansing itself.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Pagan Christianity 12: New Testament 101
Now we terminate Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity with prejudice today.
The previous posts were:
1. Viola's Preface
2. Barna's Introduction
3. The Church Building
4. The Order of Worship
5. The Sermon
6. The Pastor
7. Sunday Go to Meeting Clothes
8. Music in the Church
9. Chapters 8 and 9: Tithing/Paying Ministers (8) and the Sacraments (9)
10. Christian Education
And now, the rest of the book.
First today is Chapter 11, "Reapproaching the New Testament: The Bible is not a Jigsaw Puzzle."
This is the chapter where Viola assumes that all the pastors and seminarians who read the Bible are idiots who don't know that the books of Paul were arranged from longest to shortest, not according to when they were written. He assumes that no one knows that the chapter and verse divisions were added in the late medieval period and that if we would only learn how to read the books (or rather, Paul, he's not as interested in the other books of the Bible) in context, all our problems would be over.
AND... he treats all the house church people who aren't doing it his way ignorant idiots as well. Tell me, who is left to read his books?
Of course those of us who believe in Christian education learned these sorts of things our freshman year in a New Testament Survey course at a Christian college. I can understand that since Viola doesn't believe in Christian education, he would have reason to assume that the people in his assemblies are stupid and don't know the first thing about the Bible. And of course he doesn't believe that there should be pastors who of course then aren't around to bring such basic knowledge to their congregations. Curiously, though, he seems to be willing to teach all those Christian ignoramuses out there what he thinks he knows, preferably on a compound he's developing in Guyana.
Chapter 12: "A Second Glance at the Savior: Jesus the Revolutionary"
Here are some verses Viola might not have put on his "clipboard" (mostly TNIV):
1. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you" (Matt. 23:2-3). What, you mean Jesus didn't teach rebellion against those establishment Pharisees? Oh.
2. "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead" (Acts 23:6). Wait, Paul calling himself a Pharisee in the present tense near the end of his mission?
3."Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said..." (Acts 15:5). Wait, not pseudo-Christians? A group of Christians with distinct ideologies and practices in the Jerusalem church? Wait, isn't that what a denomination is?
4. "Before certain people came from James, Peter used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles... even Barnabas was led astray... I [Paul] called Peter a hypocrite before them all" (Galatians 2:12-13).
5. The verse where Paul tells us Peter, James, and Barnabas finally saw it his way: .
Oh, that's right, they went their separate ways as different "segments" of the early church with distinct theological ideologies and distinct practices. Wait, isn't that what a denomination is?
6. Their perspective on how Gentiles can eat with Jewish Christians: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29).
7. Paul's comment on their position when dealing with the same issues at Corinth: .
8. Matthew's position on the Law: "Do not think I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17, 19).
9. Ephesians' position: "he... has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations" (Eph. 2:14-15).
Wait, doesn't Matthew say Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law and Ephesians says Christ did? Then there's Paul in Romans 3:31, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Sounds like distinct theologies of the Law and perhaps some differing practices in relation to the Law in the early church. Wait, isn't that what denominations are?
10. "They [women, descendants of Eve] have come to be in transgression. Nevertheless, they will be saved through childbearing" (1 Tim. 2:14-15).
11. "By grace you have been saved, through faith... not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).
12. "... by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb. 10:10).
13. "Let women be silent in the churches" (1 Cor. 14:33).
14. "Your sons and daughters will prophesy" (Acts 2:17).
Yeah, the early church didn't have different groups with distinct ideologies and practices and the one, single practice they all had was Viola's theology and practice.
Afterword: "The Next Step"
A new approach to worship: my way.
A new approach to spiritual growth: my way.
A new approach to managing resources: my way.
A new look at your identity: my way.
Final Thoughts
This last bit is a Q & A, probably based on questions people asked after the first edition. My advice, read this Q & A rather than the book. As usual, he is more measured in the Q & A than in the chapters.
I'm calling it quits. I'll probably never do anything more, but the book I'd like to write to right the wrong in this book and right the right in this book is a book I'd title, Generous Ecclesiology.
:-)
The previous posts were:
1. Viola's Preface
2. Barna's Introduction
3. The Church Building
4. The Order of Worship
5. The Sermon
6. The Pastor
7. Sunday Go to Meeting Clothes
8. Music in the Church
9. Chapters 8 and 9: Tithing/Paying Ministers (8) and the Sacraments (9)
10. Christian Education
And now, the rest of the book.
First today is Chapter 11, "Reapproaching the New Testament: The Bible is not a Jigsaw Puzzle."
This is the chapter where Viola assumes that all the pastors and seminarians who read the Bible are idiots who don't know that the books of Paul were arranged from longest to shortest, not according to when they were written. He assumes that no one knows that the chapter and verse divisions were added in the late medieval period and that if we would only learn how to read the books (or rather, Paul, he's not as interested in the other books of the Bible) in context, all our problems would be over.
AND... he treats all the house church people who aren't doing it his way ignorant idiots as well. Tell me, who is left to read his books?
Of course those of us who believe in Christian education learned these sorts of things our freshman year in a New Testament Survey course at a Christian college. I can understand that since Viola doesn't believe in Christian education, he would have reason to assume that the people in his assemblies are stupid and don't know the first thing about the Bible. And of course he doesn't believe that there should be pastors who of course then aren't around to bring such basic knowledge to their congregations. Curiously, though, he seems to be willing to teach all those Christian ignoramuses out there what he thinks he knows, preferably on a compound he's developing in Guyana.
Chapter 12: "A Second Glance at the Savior: Jesus the Revolutionary"
Here are some verses Viola might not have put on his "clipboard" (mostly TNIV):
1. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you" (Matt. 23:2-3). What, you mean Jesus didn't teach rebellion against those establishment Pharisees? Oh.
2. "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead" (Acts 23:6). Wait, Paul calling himself a Pharisee in the present tense near the end of his mission?
3."Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said..." (Acts 15:5). Wait, not pseudo-Christians? A group of Christians with distinct ideologies and practices in the Jerusalem church? Wait, isn't that what a denomination is?
4. "Before certain people came from James, Peter used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles... even Barnabas was led astray... I [Paul] called Peter a hypocrite before them all" (Galatians 2:12-13).
5. The verse where Paul tells us Peter, James, and Barnabas finally saw it his way: .
Oh, that's right, they went their separate ways as different "segments" of the early church with distinct theological ideologies and distinct practices. Wait, isn't that what a denomination is?
6. Their perspective on how Gentiles can eat with Jewish Christians: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29).
7. Paul's comment on their position when dealing with the same issues at Corinth: .
8. Matthew's position on the Law: "Do not think I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17, 19).
9. Ephesians' position: "he... has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations" (Eph. 2:14-15).
Wait, doesn't Matthew say Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law and Ephesians says Christ did? Then there's Paul in Romans 3:31, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Sounds like distinct theologies of the Law and perhaps some differing practices in relation to the Law in the early church. Wait, isn't that what denominations are?
10. "They [women, descendants of Eve] have come to be in transgression. Nevertheless, they will be saved through childbearing" (1 Tim. 2:14-15).
11. "By grace you have been saved, through faith... not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).
12. "... by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (Heb. 10:10).
13. "Let women be silent in the churches" (1 Cor. 14:33).
14. "Your sons and daughters will prophesy" (Acts 2:17).
Yeah, the early church didn't have different groups with distinct ideologies and practices and the one, single practice they all had was Viola's theology and practice.
Afterword: "The Next Step"
A new approach to worship: my way.
A new approach to spiritual growth: my way.
A new approach to managing resources: my way.
A new look at your identity: my way.
Final Thoughts
This last bit is a Q & A, probably based on questions people asked after the first edition. My advice, read this Q & A rather than the book. As usual, he is more measured in the Q & A than in the chapters.
I'm calling it quits. I'll probably never do anything more, but the book I'd like to write to right the wrong in this book and right the right in this book is a book I'd title, Generous Ecclesiology.
:-)
Monday, March 30, 2009
The New Perspective and the Wesleyan Tradition
If I were to write a chapter or essay on the question, "The New Perspective and the Wesleyan Tradition," it became clear to me this weekend how I think I would structure it. Here is the outline:
1. What is the "new" perspective?
1. What is the "new" perspective?
- First, at this point of the game, calling the trends of this essay "the new perspective" is probably unhelpful. All that is meant by the term is 1) the re-appraisal of the nature of Judaism that took place in the late twentieth century in the light of new discoveries and, especially, some harsh political mirrors held up to the West, and 2) the re-appraisal of exactly what Paul was saying in this light.
- Hardly anyone--not even those high level scholars who resist these trends--has been unaffected. Even those who are more "old perspective" have changed. The only ones who have not changed are those who do not really read Paul with a view to what he original meant at all, but almost entirely read him through traditional glasses (e.g., John Piper, who for this reason does not completely count as a scholar of the original meaning).
- Stendahl's (a Lutheran) main contribution was to show the falseness of the Lutheran model of Paul as so vexed with his guilty conscience that he finally turned to justification by faith alone, understood as having nothing to do with action at all. Rather, Paul had a "robust conscience" both before and after he believed on Christ. His turning to Christ was more of a call to the Gentiles than a conversion and in any case was not in his mind a conversion from one religion to another.
- Romans 7 thus was not Paul's current struggle with sin, an acknowledgement made now even by the most prominent original meaning scholars in the Calvinist tradition (e.g., Moo).
- The end result is that Paul had a much greater emphasis on a blameless life than the primary representatives of Protestantism had allowed.
- If Stendahl and others opened the door, Sanders gave critical mass to the recognition that Judaism almost always had acknowledged the primacy of God's grace over Jews being able to earn God's favor. The Jews did not understand keeping the Law to get them in but to be the appropriate response to God's grace and essential for staying in the covenant.
- This schema fits well with both Calvinist and Arminian understandings of post-justification righteousness. The Spirit empowers us to keep the righteous requirements of the Law after we have been justified by faith. However, it is the Arminian tradition that correctly understands the importance of blamelessness for staying in after justification by faith.
- Dunn correctly has recognized that "works of Law" in Paul are not best understood as bald "works" in general. Most of the time, the phrase "works of Law" has overtones of the Jewish particulars of the Law rather than law-keeping in some general sense. This recognition significantly diminishes the Protestant polarization of faith and works.
- Dunn also has shown the lack of focus in readings of Paul that focus on some supposed absolute moral perfection being God's expectation. This is a reading of a verses like Galatians 3:10 or 5:3 that puts an artificial emphasis on "all" or "whole," as if Paul is painting a picture of God's character in which he must have justice for every last drop of sin. But God's justice is not the centerpiece or fountain of Paul's theology, or of the theology of any part of the New Testament. God's righteousness has more to do in Paul with God's proactive character in saving His people and the world, which fits very well with Wesleyan theology.
- Wright's primarily contribution, in terms of Wesleyan-Arminian theology, is his recognition of the importance of works in final justification, chiefly in passages like Romans 2:5-10; 14:10-12; and 2 Corinthians 5:10. Wright also correctly sees the Spirit as establishing in reality what God does on the basis of faith when one first believes on Christ. The missing piece for Wright is the importance of blamelessness for "staying in."
- Wright follows in the train of the majority who now see Romans 1:16 as a reference to God's righteousness rather than some righteousness from God, which again fits with a greater emphasis on love as the driving characteristic of God in salvation, not a drive to work around His justice.
6. Conclusion
- These developments thus support love (righteousness) as the central character of God in relation to salvation, not God's justice.
- They point out the importance of literal righteousness as a product of the Spirit, essential for final justification, that faith and works are not contradictory.
- They recognize that Romans 7 is in fact exactly the opposite of the situation of the believer. It is exactly the problem that the Spirit solves for the believer.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Paul Novel: Galatians 4
... Paul, Barnabas, and Titus returned to Antioch with a sense of triumph. Neither James nor Peter had forced Titus to be circumcised, and by their allowance, they had legitimized Paul's mission and message. Peter, not long thereafter, traveled to Antioch, realizing that the city was quickly becoming a center of the Way as influential as Jerusalem. He honestly rejoiced to see the thriving community of faith, with numerous assemblies meeting all over the city on the Lord's Day.
Paul was very hopeful for Peter's complete support at first. Paul made sure that all the Gentile assemblies invite Peter to their fellowships on the Lord's Day. He was initially somewhat reluctant, given that these were Gentile homes, often with Paul being the only other Jew. But he consented, not only because Paul was persuasive, but because he genuinely wanted to see them grow in faith.
The second or third Sunday Peter met in a Gentile assembly, he began to loosen up. The biggest issue was when he met with them to eat the Lord's meal. If he met in the morning for prayer, there was awkwardness of being in a Gentile home. But when he ate the love feast with them, there was the issue of impurity through the meal.
In general, Peter had not spent too much time in his life worrying about such things. He was a fisherman from Galilee, not a member of some Pharisee dining club or an Essene in a commune on the shores of the Dead Sea. Jesus had hardly worried about such things either, taking them into the homes of toll collectors and occasionally eating in the presence of prostitutes.
But not so with James. Jesus' free wheeling fellowship was one of the reasons he had resisted his ministry while he was on earth. And now he was conscious of a large group of believers in Jerusalem who were very sensitive to these sorts of issues. So when the rumors of Peter's incautious dining with Gentiles got back to Jerusalem, James immediately sent an urgent message back to him. One of those who returned with the messengers was none other than John Mark.
The thrust of the message was that Peter had to set the tone for Jewish believers because he was the apostle, the one who had seen the Lord. Maybe Gentiles could escape God's wrath by their confession of Jesus as Lord, repentance for their sins, and baptism in the name of Jesus' faithful death. But Jewish believers were still a part of the covenant God had made with Israel. God's expectation that they would keep the commandments was as firm as ever. Jesus had not changed that. Many believers in Jerusalem might be lost to the Way if they were to find that Peter was being so careless about his purity.
Here was his suggestion. If the Gentile believers would only adopt a few simple practices, then Jew and Gentile would be able to continue to eat together. For example, if they would make sure that the meat they served had not been sacrificed at a nearby temple, that was very important, given how much of the meat in the marketplace was defiled. Then if they would make sure that the animal was drained of blood, not strangled, then no blood would be among the meat.
Finally, Gentiles were notorious for their sexual immorality. If they would keep themselves pure in this way, and be careful about the way they acquired and prepared any meat for the Lord's meal, then it would be possible for Jew and Gentile to eat together. Of course in practice it would not be so simple. Peter would need to make sure not only that everyone present for the meal was clean, but that every member of the household in general was.
Peter tried to put on as good a face as he could, but frankly, it was embarrassing the whole way around. He had planned the coming Sunday to meet in one of the Gentile house churches. He tried to bow out as tactfully as possible at the last minute. When Paul heard of it, knowing that certain men had come that week from James, he suspected that something was wrong.
So he went to Peter, who had not planned to announce the new decisions quite so soon. But Paul's doggedness forced the issue, and all the elders of the city were called together the next evening. The church rejoiced that the Gentiles had received the good news of the Messiah and in their salvation. But Israel was the people of God, and God had given Israel the Law, in which he specified rules of purity and impurity. So the Jews could not eat with the Gentile believers unless they were willing to make their homes clean according to the Levitical laws.
Paul was outraged. He had suspected something was up, but requiring the Gentile believers to make their homes kosher? The absurdity of it all. He couldn't contain himself--didn't think God wanted him to.
"So you--you, Peter--are going to make the Gentiles keep the rules of kashrut? What a joke! What hypocrisy! You, keep the Law? You, who already live like a Gentile are going to force the Gentiles to live like a Jew?
"I've kept the Law. I've kept the Law like no one in this room has ever kept the Law. On my most impure day I kept the Law better than James on his most pure day. I've kept it better than anyone in the entire Jerusalem community ever has. But what I needed was the death of Christ. My attention to the minute works of the Law did not bring me God's favor.
"This is insincere. Worse, it is of the Satan. We all stand or fall before God on the basis of Christ's faithfulness and our trust in it, whether Jew or Gentile. To turn to anything else after the Christ has died for us, is to spit on his grace."
It was a tense moment. Barnabas finally tried to make peace. Paul's bluntness had not earned him any sympathy. If anything it had turned some who would have been sympathetic to the other side.
"Brother Paul," Barnabas said. "It seems little to ask for our Gentile brothers to take a little extra caution in preparing their meals. And even you have not approved of the sexual immorality we have encountered on our mission. No one expects you to change the way you fellowship with the Gentile believers. But this feels right to me and especially right for Peter, since he is as you have said yourself, the apostle to the Jews" ...
Paul was very hopeful for Peter's complete support at first. Paul made sure that all the Gentile assemblies invite Peter to their fellowships on the Lord's Day. He was initially somewhat reluctant, given that these were Gentile homes, often with Paul being the only other Jew. But he consented, not only because Paul was persuasive, but because he genuinely wanted to see them grow in faith.
The second or third Sunday Peter met in a Gentile assembly, he began to loosen up. The biggest issue was when he met with them to eat the Lord's meal. If he met in the morning for prayer, there was awkwardness of being in a Gentile home. But when he ate the love feast with them, there was the issue of impurity through the meal.
In general, Peter had not spent too much time in his life worrying about such things. He was a fisherman from Galilee, not a member of some Pharisee dining club or an Essene in a commune on the shores of the Dead Sea. Jesus had hardly worried about such things either, taking them into the homes of toll collectors and occasionally eating in the presence of prostitutes.
But not so with James. Jesus' free wheeling fellowship was one of the reasons he had resisted his ministry while he was on earth. And now he was conscious of a large group of believers in Jerusalem who were very sensitive to these sorts of issues. So when the rumors of Peter's incautious dining with Gentiles got back to Jerusalem, James immediately sent an urgent message back to him. One of those who returned with the messengers was none other than John Mark.
The thrust of the message was that Peter had to set the tone for Jewish believers because he was the apostle, the one who had seen the Lord. Maybe Gentiles could escape God's wrath by their confession of Jesus as Lord, repentance for their sins, and baptism in the name of Jesus' faithful death. But Jewish believers were still a part of the covenant God had made with Israel. God's expectation that they would keep the commandments was as firm as ever. Jesus had not changed that. Many believers in Jerusalem might be lost to the Way if they were to find that Peter was being so careless about his purity.
Here was his suggestion. If the Gentile believers would only adopt a few simple practices, then Jew and Gentile would be able to continue to eat together. For example, if they would make sure that the meat they served had not been sacrificed at a nearby temple, that was very important, given how much of the meat in the marketplace was defiled. Then if they would make sure that the animal was drained of blood, not strangled, then no blood would be among the meat.
Finally, Gentiles were notorious for their sexual immorality. If they would keep themselves pure in this way, and be careful about the way they acquired and prepared any meat for the Lord's meal, then it would be possible for Jew and Gentile to eat together. Of course in practice it would not be so simple. Peter would need to make sure not only that everyone present for the meal was clean, but that every member of the household in general was.
Peter tried to put on as good a face as he could, but frankly, it was embarrassing the whole way around. He had planned the coming Sunday to meet in one of the Gentile house churches. He tried to bow out as tactfully as possible at the last minute. When Paul heard of it, knowing that certain men had come that week from James, he suspected that something was wrong.
So he went to Peter, who had not planned to announce the new decisions quite so soon. But Paul's doggedness forced the issue, and all the elders of the city were called together the next evening. The church rejoiced that the Gentiles had received the good news of the Messiah and in their salvation. But Israel was the people of God, and God had given Israel the Law, in which he specified rules of purity and impurity. So the Jews could not eat with the Gentile believers unless they were willing to make their homes clean according to the Levitical laws.
Paul was outraged. He had suspected something was up, but requiring the Gentile believers to make their homes kosher? The absurdity of it all. He couldn't contain himself--didn't think God wanted him to.
"So you--you, Peter--are going to make the Gentiles keep the rules of kashrut? What a joke! What hypocrisy! You, keep the Law? You, who already live like a Gentile are going to force the Gentiles to live like a Jew?
"I've kept the Law. I've kept the Law like no one in this room has ever kept the Law. On my most impure day I kept the Law better than James on his most pure day. I've kept it better than anyone in the entire Jerusalem community ever has. But what I needed was the death of Christ. My attention to the minute works of the Law did not bring me God's favor.
"This is insincere. Worse, it is of the Satan. We all stand or fall before God on the basis of Christ's faithfulness and our trust in it, whether Jew or Gentile. To turn to anything else after the Christ has died for us, is to spit on his grace."
It was a tense moment. Barnabas finally tried to make peace. Paul's bluntness had not earned him any sympathy. If anything it had turned some who would have been sympathetic to the other side.
"Brother Paul," Barnabas said. "It seems little to ask for our Gentile brothers to take a little extra caution in preparing their meals. And even you have not approved of the sexual immorality we have encountered on our mission. No one expects you to change the way you fellowship with the Gentile believers. But this feels right to me and especially right for Peter, since he is as you have said yourself, the apostle to the Jews" ...
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Tom Wright: Justification The End
And with this post we finally at long last finish our review of N. T. Wright's, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, Wright's response to John Piper's book, The Future of Justification. I can truly understand I understand where he's coming from much better now.
The previous posts were:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
Chapter 6: Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians
Chapter 7.1 Romans 1:16-17
Chapter 7.2 Romans 1:18-2:16
Chapter 7.3 Romans 2:17-3:20
Chapter 7.4 Romans 3:21-26 7.5
Chapter 7:5-6 Romans 3:27-31 and chapter 4
And now, the rest.
Chapter 7.7: Romans 5-8
What is the connection between justification by faith at the beginning and justification at the end with works taken into account? "the people who are already justified by faith are the people who will live the sort of life I described earlier on, those who will have the present verdict confirmed in the future" (198). In short, "Chapters 5-8 is, in fact, a single great argument for assurrance, the Christian doctrine that 'those whom God justified, them he also glorified' (8.30). In other words, that the verdict already announced is indeed a true anticipation of the verdict yet to be announced"
I personally don't think the connection is quite so neat, but this is a brilliant escape from the potential conundrum of the tension between (initial) justification by faith and (final) judgment/justification by works.
We also find this: "the notion of 'being in Christ' which Paul develops in these chapters is rooted in, and fully dovetails with, the doctrine of justification. It is not the case, in other words, that one has to choose between 'justification by faith' and 'being in Christ' as the 'centre' of Paul's thought" (201).
I'm pretty dubious about propositional centers anyway. Tell me what part of Paul's theology we're talking about and who he's talking to and I'll tell you what I think the focus is.
This was an interesting quote to me, all in italics in the book: "It is therefore a straightforward category mistake, however venerable within some Reformed traditions including part of my own, to suppose that Jesus 'obeyed the law' and so obtained 'righteousness' which could be reckoned to those who believe in him" (205). I suspect Wright is right.
Throughout this section Wright rightly emphasizes the importance of the Holy Spirit in making what is done legally in justification by faith actual righteousness in works through the power. I've omitted some of the more idiosyncratic Wright stuff with which we are all now very well acquainted.
Chapter 7.8: Romans 9-11
He focuses first on 9:30-10:13. "The subject of this passage is God's righteousness, the righteousness of God's people, their salvation and how it might be attained, and above all the covenant" (212).
"I have no hesitation in saying that dikaiosyne in 9.30 and 9.31 must be understood in terms of membership within the covenant" (214). The problem is that I don't see the word covenant here. Yes, it clearly has implications for who God's people end up being. Maybe I'm dense. I just don't see it.
"Israel's mistake, here as elsewhere, was to imagine that the purpose of God was not the single-purpose-through-Israel-for-the-world but a single-purpose-for-Israel-apart-from-the-world" (215). "[T]he plan always was the single plan through Israel in the person of the Messiah alone, for the world" (216). "When people believe the gospel of Jesus and his resurrection, and confess him as Lord, they are in fact doing what the Torah wanted all along, and are therefore displaying the necessary marks of covenant renewal" (217).
I don't know what to say. I guess I still come closest to Sanders within the triad.
Conclusion
"What shall we say to these things? If Paul is for us, who can be against us?" (221). :-)
"Any attempt to give an account of a doctrine which screens out the call of Israel, the gift of the spirit, and/or the redemption of all creation is doomed to be less than fully biblical" (222).
quod faciendum eram feci. finis
The previous posts were:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
Chapter 6: Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians
Chapter 7.1 Romans 1:16-17
Chapter 7.2 Romans 1:18-2:16
Chapter 7.3 Romans 2:17-3:20
Chapter 7.4 Romans 3:21-26 7.5
Chapter 7:5-6 Romans 3:27-31 and chapter 4
And now, the rest.
Chapter 7.7: Romans 5-8
What is the connection between justification by faith at the beginning and justification at the end with works taken into account? "the people who are already justified by faith are the people who will live the sort of life I described earlier on, those who will have the present verdict confirmed in the future" (198). In short, "Chapters 5-8 is, in fact, a single great argument for assurrance, the Christian doctrine that 'those whom God justified, them he also glorified' (8.30). In other words, that the verdict already announced is indeed a true anticipation of the verdict yet to be announced"
I personally don't think the connection is quite so neat, but this is a brilliant escape from the potential conundrum of the tension between (initial) justification by faith and (final) judgment/justification by works.
We also find this: "the notion of 'being in Christ' which Paul develops in these chapters is rooted in, and fully dovetails with, the doctrine of justification. It is not the case, in other words, that one has to choose between 'justification by faith' and 'being in Christ' as the 'centre' of Paul's thought" (201).
I'm pretty dubious about propositional centers anyway. Tell me what part of Paul's theology we're talking about and who he's talking to and I'll tell you what I think the focus is.
This was an interesting quote to me, all in italics in the book: "It is therefore a straightforward category mistake, however venerable within some Reformed traditions including part of my own, to suppose that Jesus 'obeyed the law' and so obtained 'righteousness' which could be reckoned to those who believe in him" (205). I suspect Wright is right.
Throughout this section Wright rightly emphasizes the importance of the Holy Spirit in making what is done legally in justification by faith actual righteousness in works through the power. I've omitted some of the more idiosyncratic Wright stuff with which we are all now very well acquainted.
Chapter 7.8: Romans 9-11
He focuses first on 9:30-10:13. "The subject of this passage is God's righteousness, the righteousness of God's people, their salvation and how it might be attained, and above all the covenant" (212).
"I have no hesitation in saying that dikaiosyne in 9.30 and 9.31 must be understood in terms of membership within the covenant" (214). The problem is that I don't see the word covenant here. Yes, it clearly has implications for who God's people end up being. Maybe I'm dense. I just don't see it.
"Israel's mistake, here as elsewhere, was to imagine that the purpose of God was not the single-purpose-through-Israel-for-the-world but a single-purpose-for-Israel-apart-from-the-world" (215). "[T]he plan always was the single plan through Israel in the person of the Messiah alone, for the world" (216). "When people believe the gospel of Jesus and his resurrection, and confess him as Lord, they are in fact doing what the Torah wanted all along, and are therefore displaying the necessary marks of covenant renewal" (217).
I don't know what to say. I guess I still come closest to Sanders within the triad.
Conclusion
"What shall we say to these things? If Paul is for us, who can be against us?" (221). :-)
"Any attempt to give an account of a doctrine which screens out the call of Israel, the gift of the spirit, and/or the redemption of all creation is doomed to be less than fully biblical" (222).
quod faciendum eram feci. finis
Friday, March 27, 2009
Not Likely Luke by Easter 4: Luke 4
I hereby give notice 1) that I read Luke 4 today and 2) I don't plan to post any more... that way maybe I'll finish or maybe I won't... :-)
Tom Wright: Justification 7.5-7.6
This is the fifth part of my review of the seventh chapter of N. T. Wright's, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, Wright's response to John Piper's book, The Future of Justification.
Chapters reviewed thus far:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
Chapter 6: Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians
Chapter 7.1 Romans 1:16-17
Chapter 7.2 Romans 1:18-2:16
Chapter 7.3 Romans 2:17-3:20
Chapter 7.4 Romans 3:21-26
7.5 Romans 3:27-31 (pp.185-90)
The boast that there is no room for, for Wright, is the boast of Israel of superiority because of having the Law. I think I agree, although not exactly in all of Wright's particulars. I think Wright would agree that it is a boasting of a Jew having an advantage in relation to justification because of being a Jew, when they do not have such an advantage.
One place where I disagree with Wright is his penchant always to translate nomos as Torah. To me Paul slips in and out of the various nuances of the word, an article I've never gotten around to writing, woah is me.
Wright correctly scraps the medieval concept of imputed righteousness, where the "imputer" transfers "his" own righteousness to the other. Nothing like that in this law court scenario.
7.6 Romans 4 (190-97)
Here we find again Wright's strong assertion that Abraham is not simply an example of someone who is justified by faith but "the foundation of the single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world" (190). I reread the chapter because the promise is through Abraham in Galatians and I assume Paul has not changed his mind. But after rereading Romans 4, I still think Paul here is using Abraham more as a prototype of faith than as "the single plan for the world," and I don't see the "through Israel" part here at all.
Wright agrees with Hays that the opening verse has been mistranslated. Most versions say something like, "What therefore will we say Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, to have found [regarding justification]?" Hays has argued in an article (now reprinted in The Conversion of the Imagination) that in keeping with Paul's other "What then" statements it should be translated something like, "What then will we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to flesh?" You'll remember that there was no punctuation in the original Greek, so we have to make these sorts of decisions as interpreters.
I feel the argument. My main objections are 1) the "to have found" is an infinitive and so flows most naturally in connection with a main verb like "will we say" and 2) I don't think the Greek fathers took the verse this way--and they were much better at Greek grammar than us.
Wright summarizes Romans 4: "The whole chapter, then, is not about 'how Abraham got justified by faith' so much as 'God's faithfulness to his promises to Abraham, giving him a worldwide family whose badge is the same faith that Abraham himself had' (195). OK, I reread the chapter again and I still disagree with Wright's emphasis. Yes, Abraham is the father of both Jew and Gentile who are justified by faith, but the emphasis of the chapter is on how to be justified, not on God keeping his promises to Abraham. The location of promise language in the chapter is not in the past with the story of Abraham but in the accomplishment of justification in the present.
I still don't get the whole "faith as badge of covenant membership" thing.
To end today on a good note, Wright was helpful to me in the connection between resurrection and justification that Paul makes at the end of the chapter. "[I]f the cross had dealt with sin it would also have dealt with death" (196), Wright says, referring to 1 Corinthians 15's argument. Jesus' resurrection thus proves that sins have been dealt with on the cross and thus, that justification can take place.
Chapters reviewed thus far:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
Chapter 6: Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians
Chapter 7.1 Romans 1:16-17
Chapter 7.2 Romans 1:18-2:16
Chapter 7.3 Romans 2:17-3:20
Chapter 7.4 Romans 3:21-26
7.5 Romans 3:27-31 (pp.185-90)
The boast that there is no room for, for Wright, is the boast of Israel of superiority because of having the Law. I think I agree, although not exactly in all of Wright's particulars. I think Wright would agree that it is a boasting of a Jew having an advantage in relation to justification because of being a Jew, when they do not have such an advantage.
One place where I disagree with Wright is his penchant always to translate nomos as Torah. To me Paul slips in and out of the various nuances of the word, an article I've never gotten around to writing, woah is me.
Wright correctly scraps the medieval concept of imputed righteousness, where the "imputer" transfers "his" own righteousness to the other. Nothing like that in this law court scenario.
7.6 Romans 4 (190-97)
Here we find again Wright's strong assertion that Abraham is not simply an example of someone who is justified by faith but "the foundation of the single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world" (190). I reread the chapter because the promise is through Abraham in Galatians and I assume Paul has not changed his mind. But after rereading Romans 4, I still think Paul here is using Abraham more as a prototype of faith than as "the single plan for the world," and I don't see the "through Israel" part here at all.
Wright agrees with Hays that the opening verse has been mistranslated. Most versions say something like, "What therefore will we say Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, to have found [regarding justification]?" Hays has argued in an article (now reprinted in The Conversion of the Imagination) that in keeping with Paul's other "What then" statements it should be translated something like, "What then will we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to flesh?" You'll remember that there was no punctuation in the original Greek, so we have to make these sorts of decisions as interpreters.
I feel the argument. My main objections are 1) the "to have found" is an infinitive and so flows most naturally in connection with a main verb like "will we say" and 2) I don't think the Greek fathers took the verse this way--and they were much better at Greek grammar than us.
Wright summarizes Romans 4: "The whole chapter, then, is not about 'how Abraham got justified by faith' so much as 'God's faithfulness to his promises to Abraham, giving him a worldwide family whose badge is the same faith that Abraham himself had' (195). OK, I reread the chapter again and I still disagree with Wright's emphasis. Yes, Abraham is the father of both Jew and Gentile who are justified by faith, but the emphasis of the chapter is on how to be justified, not on God keeping his promises to Abraham. The location of promise language in the chapter is not in the past with the story of Abraham but in the accomplishment of justification in the present.
I still don't get the whole "faith as badge of covenant membership" thing.
To end today on a good note, Wright was helpful to me in the connection between resurrection and justification that Paul makes at the end of the chapter. "[I]f the cross had dealt with sin it would also have dealt with death" (196), Wright says, referring to 1 Corinthians 15's argument. Jesus' resurrection thus proves that sins have been dealt with on the cross and thus, that justification can take place.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Calvin Goof of the Day 3-26-09
In Romans 7, "he is discussing the Christian struggle (more briefly touched in Galatians [ch. 5:17]), which believers constantly feel in themselves in the conflict between flesh and spirit. But the Spirit comes, not from nature, but from regeneration. Moreover, it is clear that the apostle is speaking of these regenerated, because when he had said that no good dwelt in him, he adds the explanation that he is referring to his flesh [Rom. 7:18].
"Accordingly, he declares that it is not he who does evil, but sin dwelling in him. [Rom. 7:20.] What does he mean by this correction: "In me, that is, in my flesh" [Rom. 7:18]? It is as if he were speaking in this way: "Good does not dwell in me of myself, for nothing good is to be found in my flesh." Hence follows that form of an excuse: "I myself do not do evil, but sin that dwells in me" [Rom. 7:20]. This excuse applies only to the regenerate who tend toward good with the chief part of their soul.
"Now the conclusion appended clearly explains this whole matter: "For I delight in the law . . . according to the inner man, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind" [Rom. 7:22-23]. Who would have such strife in himself but a man who, regenerated by the Spirit of God, bears the remains of his flesh about with him?"
Oops. I guess Calvin isn't inspired. No wonder so many fundamentalist Calvinists are up in arms about the "new" perspective. It's hard to kick against the pricks.
"Accordingly, he declares that it is not he who does evil, but sin dwelling in him. [Rom. 7:20.] What does he mean by this correction: "In me, that is, in my flesh" [Rom. 7:18]? It is as if he were speaking in this way: "Good does not dwell in me of myself, for nothing good is to be found in my flesh." Hence follows that form of an excuse: "I myself do not do evil, but sin that dwells in me" [Rom. 7:20]. This excuse applies only to the regenerate who tend toward good with the chief part of their soul.
"Now the conclusion appended clearly explains this whole matter: "For I delight in the law . . . according to the inner man, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind" [Rom. 7:22-23]. Who would have such strife in himself but a man who, regenerated by the Spirit of God, bears the remains of his flesh about with him?"
Oops. I guess Calvin isn't inspired. No wonder so many fundamentalist Calvinists are up in arms about the "new" perspective. It's hard to kick against the pricks.
Calvin Quote for Day 3-26-09
Man, I'm way behind on Calvin reading...
"... the greatest geniuses are blinder than moles! Certainly I do not deny that one can read competent and apt statements about God here and there in the philosophers, but these always show a certain giddy imagination."
"... the greatest geniuses are blinder than moles! Certainly I do not deny that one can read competent and apt statements about God here and there in the philosophers, but these always show a certain giddy imagination."
Tom Wright: Justification 7.4
This is the fourth dying gasp of my review of the seventh chapter of N. T. Wright's, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, Wright's response to John Piper's book, The Future of Justification.
Chapters reviewed thus far:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
Chapter 6: Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians
Chapter 7.1 Romans 1:16-17
Chapter 7.2 Romans 1:18-2:16
Chapter 7.3 Romans 2:17-3:20
And now 3:21-26 (pp.176-85). One day I'll have the mental strength just to plow through the rest. I finished the book Sunday on a plane, but I'm just sooo tired mentally.
Now righteousness of God has been revealed... "'God's righteousness', in the light of 2.17-3.8, must mean, and can only mean, God's faithfulness to his single plan, the plan through which he will deal with the problem of human sin and put the whole world to right at last" (176). Sounds familiar. I still think he reads too much meaning into the phrase, although I certainly agree more with him than Piper.
I did enjoy his rag on the NIV, again! "... fudging the evidence by translating dikaiosyne in verses 25 an 26 as 'justice', not noticing what a mess they are thereby making of the inner coherence of the paragraph" (177).
By the way, Steve Lennox is doing a review on the ESV Study Bible. I guess it has lots of bells and whistles... and of course is endorsed by several key wrong people for Wesleyans--John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Albert Mohler. I won't speak ill of all the names who have endorsed it, but Wesleyans should be aware that the individuals I just named hold views fundamentally incompatible with the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition (there is good in them, but you should treat anything you read from them as a hostile witness). The translation itself is a good translation, although I do not recommend it to Wesleyans (I'm endorsing the NLT and TNIV as our replacements for the NIV--I'll wait to see some of the other new ones). But I explicitly oppose the use of the ESV Study Bible by Wesleyans.
Now back to Wright: "faithfulness of Jesus Christ..."
"It was not so much that 'God needed a sinless victim', though in sacrificial terms that is no doubt true as well, as that 'God needed a faithful Israelite' (178). I agree with the first part, just don't see the second part.
I very much am sympathetic to his read of "the one from the faith of Jesus." Wright says it "looks as though it is a telescoping together of both halves of 3:22, 'through the faithfulness of Jesus for the benefit of all who have faith'" (179). Yes!
That's about as much of this section I feel like wading through today...
Chapters reviewed thus far:
Chapter 1: What's it all about and why does it matter
Chapter 2: Rules of engagement
Chapter 3: First Century Judaism
Chapter 4: Justification: Definitions and Puzzles
Chapter 5: Exegesis of Galatians
Chapter 6: Interlude: Philippians, Corinthians, Ephesians
Chapter 7.1 Romans 1:16-17
Chapter 7.2 Romans 1:18-2:16
Chapter 7.3 Romans 2:17-3:20
And now 3:21-26 (pp.176-85). One day I'll have the mental strength just to plow through the rest. I finished the book Sunday on a plane, but I'm just sooo tired mentally.
Now righteousness of God has been revealed... "'God's righteousness', in the light of 2.17-3.8, must mean, and can only mean, God's faithfulness to his single plan, the plan through which he will deal with the problem of human sin and put the whole world to right at last" (176). Sounds familiar. I still think he reads too much meaning into the phrase, although I certainly agree more with him than Piper.
I did enjoy his rag on the NIV, again! "... fudging the evidence by translating dikaiosyne in verses 25 an 26 as 'justice', not noticing what a mess they are thereby making of the inner coherence of the paragraph" (177).
By the way, Steve Lennox is doing a review on the ESV Study Bible. I guess it has lots of bells and whistles... and of course is endorsed by several key wrong people for Wesleyans--John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Albert Mohler. I won't speak ill of all the names who have endorsed it, but Wesleyans should be aware that the individuals I just named hold views fundamentally incompatible with the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition (there is good in them, but you should treat anything you read from them as a hostile witness). The translation itself is a good translation, although I do not recommend it to Wesleyans (I'm endorsing the NLT and TNIV as our replacements for the NIV--I'll wait to see some of the other new ones). But I explicitly oppose the use of the ESV Study Bible by Wesleyans.
Now back to Wright: "faithfulness of Jesus Christ..."
"It was not so much that 'God needed a sinless victim', though in sacrificial terms that is no doubt true as well, as that 'God needed a faithful Israelite' (178). I agree with the first part, just don't see the second part.
I very much am sympathetic to his read of "the one from the faith of Jesus." Wright says it "looks as though it is a telescoping together of both halves of 3:22, 'through the faithfulness of Jesus for the benefit of all who have faith'" (179). Yes!
That's about as much of this section I feel like wading through today...
Not Likely Luke by Easter 3: Luke 3
Thankfully we're out of "L" and into Mark and Q land... where the chapters are shorter... and of course added centuries later (the chapter divisions, that is).
3:7 Brood of vipers...
This is "Q" material in the sense that it is common to Matthew and Luke and not in Mark. Interesting that Matthew adds that the people Jesus is speaking to are Pharisees and Sadducees. Luke says nothing of the sort. So, assuming a common source or that one of the two used the other, who added Pharisees or who took away?
Matthew is extra down on the Pharisees so it makes sense to say that he added it. But would Luke have deleted it? I can't say that I have an opinion at this time, although I suppose if we go with the standard idea that Luke is usually the more accurate picture of Q, then we would conclude Matthew adds that they were Pharisees.
3:8 Don't say, "We have Abraham as a father."
Reminds me of some of Paul's debates about who the seed of Abraham is...
3:10-14 What should we do?
This whole section is unique to Luke and fits with his general emphasis on social justice. No one can listen to Luke-Acts and not conclude that social justice is a major Christian concern.
3:21 praying...
Luke's gospel is the only one to mention that Jesus was praying when the Spirit descended on him, yet another characteristic theme of Luke-Acts.
3:22 "You are my beloved Son..."
Luke follows Mark's wording here, rather than Matthew's, where God speaks to everyone, "This is my beloved..."
3:38 "... of God"
I can't remember Luke's theology of the phrase "Son of God." This is something to track. The way he puts it in the genealogy, we are all sons of God, which of course we are, but Luke implies Jesus as son of God in the genealogy in this generic way.
3:7 Brood of vipers...
This is "Q" material in the sense that it is common to Matthew and Luke and not in Mark. Interesting that Matthew adds that the people Jesus is speaking to are Pharisees and Sadducees. Luke says nothing of the sort. So, assuming a common source or that one of the two used the other, who added Pharisees or who took away?
Matthew is extra down on the Pharisees so it makes sense to say that he added it. But would Luke have deleted it? I can't say that I have an opinion at this time, although I suppose if we go with the standard idea that Luke is usually the more accurate picture of Q, then we would conclude Matthew adds that they were Pharisees.
3:8 Don't say, "We have Abraham as a father."
Reminds me of some of Paul's debates about who the seed of Abraham is...
3:10-14 What should we do?
This whole section is unique to Luke and fits with his general emphasis on social justice. No one can listen to Luke-Acts and not conclude that social justice is a major Christian concern.
3:21 praying...
Luke's gospel is the only one to mention that Jesus was praying when the Spirit descended on him, yet another characteristic theme of Luke-Acts.
3:22 "You are my beloved Son..."
Luke follows Mark's wording here, rather than Matthew's, where God speaks to everyone, "This is my beloved..."
3:38 "... of God"
I can't remember Luke's theology of the phrase "Son of God." This is something to track. The way he puts it in the genealogy, we are all sons of God, which of course we are, but Luke implies Jesus as son of God in the genealogy in this generic way.
Colloquium Day at IWU: Women in Ministry
Today was our semesterly colloquium. This semester was on women in ministry. If I can get Kristina LaCelle-Peterson and Russ Gunsalus' video, I'll post it here later.
Kristina gave a great sweep of the biblical information, largely by presenting the arguments of nineteenth century holiness writers. I've recommended her book here before:
Then Russ gave the response which was really the punch, since he thought she wasn't combative enough :-) His five points:
1. Think about things as people issues, not gender issues.
Martin Luther King Jr. Day is not a "black" holiday. It is a day for all people to celebrate America's core value of the equality of all people. The problem is not with men who are controlling or women who are this or that. The problem is with people who have certain negative traits.
2. Watch your mouth.
If you wouldn't feel comfortable replacing the word "women" with "Asians," "blacks," etc., then don't say it of women or men either. The biggest problem with stereotypes is that they tend to "essentialize" a characteristic that is not usually true of all people in a certain category. It is simply not the case that all women are more nurturing than all men or that all men are better leaders than all women.
If the Bible really taught this, then we simply could not avoid the conclusion that the Bible was flat wrong. That should be pretty motivating to conclude that the Bible really doesn't teach that. By the way, the main points are Russ's, but I'm doing some significant expansion of illustration and comment here, which constitutes my Amen.
3. Tie goes to equality.
Russ made the argument that if the evidence seemed roughly balanced to you for or against women in ministry, give the tie to egalitarianism. If this seems a little vague, let me give his answer to a follow up question during the later Q & A.
Which would be the worse side to fail on--let's say this hermeneutic is used by practicing homosexuals (which I should clarify Kristina showed clear distinctions in the two issues). What is the fall out, he posed? We give justification, as he put it, to 4% of the population, perhaps most of whom are not interested in evangelical Christianity. What is the potential fall out on the side of the complementarian hermeneutic? The practice of slavery that put thousands of people under constant torture, rape, and sometimes murder.
Which potential hermeneutical consequence seems less Christian--the complementarian hermeneutic?
4. Quit ignoring people.
I liked the way he put this. Everyone yawns when you mention inclusiveness or diversity. Putting it this way gets the point across. If you're ignoring a person because of their race, gender, etc, then you're not being Christian in relation to them.
5. Listen to God.
Russ's conviction that a person who truly seeks God's will on this matter will end up an egalitarian came through loud and clear. He's not worried about what God will tell you. Pray about it and be willing to listen to His answer...
Kristina gave a great sweep of the biblical information, largely by presenting the arguments of nineteenth century holiness writers. I've recommended her book here before:
Then Russ gave the response which was really the punch, since he thought she wasn't combative enough :-) His five points:
1. Think about things as people issues, not gender issues.
Martin Luther King Jr. Day is not a "black" holiday. It is a day for all people to celebrate America's core value of the equality of all people. The problem is not with men who are controlling or women who are this or that. The problem is with people who have certain negative traits.
2. Watch your mouth.
If you wouldn't feel comfortable replacing the word "women" with "Asians," "blacks," etc., then don't say it of women or men either. The biggest problem with stereotypes is that they tend to "essentialize" a characteristic that is not usually true of all people in a certain category. It is simply not the case that all women are more nurturing than all men or that all men are better leaders than all women.
If the Bible really taught this, then we simply could not avoid the conclusion that the Bible was flat wrong. That should be pretty motivating to conclude that the Bible really doesn't teach that. By the way, the main points are Russ's, but I'm doing some significant expansion of illustration and comment here, which constitutes my Amen.
3. Tie goes to equality.
Russ made the argument that if the evidence seemed roughly balanced to you for or against women in ministry, give the tie to egalitarianism. If this seems a little vague, let me give his answer to a follow up question during the later Q & A.
Which would be the worse side to fail on--let's say this hermeneutic is used by practicing homosexuals (which I should clarify Kristina showed clear distinctions in the two issues). What is the fall out, he posed? We give justification, as he put it, to 4% of the population, perhaps most of whom are not interested in evangelical Christianity. What is the potential fall out on the side of the complementarian hermeneutic? The practice of slavery that put thousands of people under constant torture, rape, and sometimes murder.
Which potential hermeneutical consequence seems less Christian--the complementarian hermeneutic?
4. Quit ignoring people.
I liked the way he put this. Everyone yawns when you mention inclusiveness or diversity. Putting it this way gets the point across. If you're ignoring a person because of their race, gender, etc, then you're not being Christian in relation to them.
5. Listen to God.
Russ's conviction that a person who truly seeks God's will on this matter will end up an egalitarian came through loud and clear. He's not worried about what God will tell you. Pray about it and be willing to listen to His answer...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
