Daniel Rose

2010s

Apr 14, 2010 ∞

Strong, weak, what!?

Our journey through freedom and the law is coming to a close, for now. I think this is the second to last post on the issue before we turn our attention to Baptism and Communion. The passage that I am interested in today is Romans 14. This is where we find the famous, “Therefore, let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. (Romans 14:13).

This is a section that I think has been done great harm and violence in Christian circles because it is so often read through a grid of legalism. Where do we begin? First, the core issues that Paul raises here are those of food laws. It seems that what we had in Rome was a church comprised of a variety of different people as one would expect in a cosmopolitan city. This caused great tension within the community as they bumped into one another’s understandings of how they were to interact with God and what it meant to live all of life in a way that brings honor to God.

Paul finds that there were two camps, the weak and the strong. The weak only ate vegetables (as these were safe from being offered to idols) and the strong ate anything. Paul in verse 3 argues that neither are despise the other. Pauls says in verse 5 that “Each one should be fully convinced his own mind.” He drives the point home in verse 12, “So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.” It is with this context that we arrive at verse 13.

Many of the commentators argue that 13b (decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother) is pointed at the “strong”. The reasoning comes from the fact that verse 15:1 says, “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak.” I think that this is accurate. The question then becomes what is the scope of the passage? Is Christian freedom to be held to the lowest common denominator across the board?

No.

First, Paul argues on behalf of the strong. He desires for all to become strong and leave weakness behind. The reason for this is that these issues are faith issues. Paul’s desire is for the people of God to fully engage in all that God has made clean in faith. He says, “Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he [God] approves (22).”

Second, Paul changes the issue. He says, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men (17–18).” Paul is telling them that their focus is off base. These issues of food and festivals are silly compared to the work of the kingdom.

Finally, Paul calls for the strong to “bear” the “failings” of the weak. This is language that drives one to realize that Paul’s desire is for change. The term “bear” is βαστάζω and is understood as “be able to bear up under especially trying or oppressive circumstances (BDAG).” This is insightful. Consider what Paul is saying. The weak are “especially trying” in their “failings”. Paul gets that those who would rob the strong of their freedom are “trying” and even “oppressive”. His desire is for them not to stay that way. He wants them to become strong. But, until that time the strong are love well and not judge.

What is the take home then? It means that those who see Christians exerting their freedom ought not pass judgment (14:3) and realize that they are weak (14:2) and ask the strong for help that they might not stay in that state. It also means that the strong must hang in there in the midst of the frustrations that come from the weak and love well. They must not flaunt their freedom or force the weak into living freely until they can do so in faith.

Paul says it well, “Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Romans 15:7)”

Apr 13, 2010 ∞

By no means!

I think that some of my favorite moments in the Bible are when the apostle Paul gets worked up. As you read you can almost feel the juices flowing inside Paul. I imagine his forehead sweating and his face turning red. I can see him pacing and flailing his arms as if he would be mute without them. Then the climactic moment comes and his hands go to the forehead, veins popping, eyes clenched, and BOOM, a statement and a torrent of questions exploding!

This is the image I get as I read Romans 5 and 6.

What concerns us today is Romans 6:15–23 (The Message):

15–18So, since we’re out from under the old tyranny, does that mean we can live any old way we want? Since we’re free in the freedom of God, can we do anything that comes to mind? Hardly. You know well enough from your own experience that there are some acts of so-called freedom that destroy freedom. Offer yourselves to sin, for instance, and it’s your last free act. But offer yourselves to the ways of God and the freedom never quits. All your lives you’ve let sin tell you what to do. But thank God you’ve started listening to a new master, one whose commands set you free to live openly in his freedom!19I’m using this freedom language because it’s easy to picture. You can readily recall, can’t you, how at one time the more you did just what you felt like doing — not caring about others, not caring about God — the worse your life became and the less freedom you had? And how much different is it now as you live in God’s freedom, your lives healed and expansive in holiness?

20–21As long as you did what you felt like doing, ignoring God, you didn’t have to bother with right thinking or right living, or right anything for that matter. But do you call that a free life? What did you get out of it? Nothing you’re proud of now. Where did it get you? A dead end.

22–23But now that you’ve found you don’t have to listen to sin tell you what to do, and have discovered the delight of listening to God telling you, what a surprise! A whole, healed, put-together life right now, with more and more of life on the way! Work hard for sin your whole life and your pension is death. But God’s gift is real life, eternal life, delivered by Jesus, our Master.

I like the way that Peterson’s translation renders this passage because I think that it gets down to the heart of the matter. Verse 15 is rendered like this in the ESV, “What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no mans!” Paul is anticipating his detractors. He is assuming what they are going to say before they say it. Remember, Paul did not physically write this letter, he dictated it to Tertius. I imagine that Tertius played the proverbial devil’s advocate for Paul so that there could be a give and take. This was meant to be a conversation not a treatise.

Consider here what Pauls is doing. He is preempting the person who would say that the radical grace that he is describing thus far is will lead to license. Paul argues quite the opposite. He argues that as a result of the freeing from the curse of the law there will be new found freedom to truly live the way that a person was made to live.

I love how Peterson puts this, “But now that you’ve found you don’t have to listen to sin tell you what to do, and have discovered the delight of listening to God telling you, what a surprise! A whole, healed, put-together life right now, with more and more of life on the way! Work hard for sin your whole life and your pension is death. But God’s gift is real life, eternal life, delivered by Jesus, our Master.” There is delight and joy in living the life of hearing from God.

I hate money. It’s annoying and it preoccupies too much of my time and other people’s time. I remember when I first heard about budgets and I thought, “Ugh, that seems restrictive and annoying.” But, then my bride and I created a budget. You know what we discovered? It gave us freedom. Prior to a budget we did not believe that we could go on dates because we did not have money. Once we created a budget we found the freedom to date again.

I think this is how grace works. When we are living lives separated from God we look at the “good two shoe” Christians and think “Ugh, that seems restrictive and annoying.” But, then our hearts are captured by the radical grace of God and we find that we have freedom to live life to its full. We find that we can do all things to the glory of God and in so doing experience great freedom. Yet, this freedom is contained within the confines of grace and glory.

This weekend Tiger Woods returned to the links. He played well, no, he played really well. Consider though the pain and agony that he suffered and his family suffered while he “did whatever he wanted” and as some sports hosts put it, “lived every man’s fantasy.” I guarantee you that Woods would trade every one of his sexual escapades for the freedom of a happy monogamous marriage with Elin.

Freedom comes from living out the reality that we were made for good and for God. This is the beauty of grace and living in light of righteousness.

Apr 9, 2010 ∞

Are you gonna eat that?

We had been walking for a week straight. The pace was incredible. We did not even feel like they had homes any more because we were always on the move. This is the way it always was. There was a constant pressure to move on to the next town and to continue proclaiming the “good news”. Saturday was always the hardest day. Usually there was no way to prepare and have extra food on hand so Saturday was a hungry day. Today, was especially tough though. Our travels took us through a grain field! It was excruciating. But, to our astonishment the Teacher grabbed the head of a grain rubbed it in his hands and ate the kernel. We looked at one another, confused, it was the Sabbath wasn’t it? But, the Teacher picked and ate. We did too.

Then “they” showed up. The religious, the high and mighty Pharisees. They were always around. They said, “Your disciples are breaking the Sabbath rules!”

The Teacher’s response was amazing, “Really? Didn’t you ever read what David and his companions did when they were hungry, how they entered the sanctuary and ate fresh bread off the altar, bread that no one but priests were allowed to eat? And didn’t you ever read in God’s Law that priests carrying out their Temple duties break Sabbath rules all the time and it’s not held against them? There is far more at stake here than religion. If you had any idea what this Scripture meant — ‘I prefer a flexible heart to an inflexible ritual’ — you wouldn’t be nitpicking like this. The Son of Man is no lackey to the Sabbath; he’s in charge.”

Then we went into the Synagogue for worship. When we got there “they” thought they had the Teacher trapped because there was a crippled man there. “They” asked, “Is it legal to heal on the Sabbath?”

The Teacher got them again, “Is there a person here who, finding one of your lambs fallen into a ravine, wouldn’t, even though it was a Sabbath, pull it out? Surely kindness to people is as legal as kindness to animals!” Then he said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” He held it out and it was healed. “They” walked out furious, sputtering about how they were going to ruin Jesus.

(Based on Matthew 12:1–14, with a little help from the Message)

–

This is an amazing story. It’s really a central text for our question about freedom and law. The law said, “Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Work six days and do everything you need to do. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God, your God. Don’t do any work — not you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your servant, nor your maid, nor your animals, not even the foreign guest visiting in your town. For in six days Godmade Heaven, Earth, and sea, and everything in them; he rested on the seventh day. Therefore God blessed the Sabbath day; he set it apart as a holy day.”

The Pharisees were somewhat right in their questioning of Jesus and the disciples. In their minds they really were breaking the sabbath commandment. But Jesus response flips their understanding of the commandment on its head, “the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath”. Brilliant! He even says that the disciples in this case are guiltless! He goes so far as to point out that they missed the point of the command when he quotes Hosea 6:6. In Hosea God has his people in the dock and calling them to account. The Pharisees would have felt the sting. Jesus was calling them out as heartless and completely disconnected from God himself.

In their quest to be faithful to God the Pharisees had missed God’s heart and his desire for them to worship. I think we are guilty of this. What are the rules that you have put in place to be faithful to God?

Maybe some of these ring true:

• No R rated movies.
• No secular music.
• No smoking.
• No drinking.
• No dating.
• No being a Democrat.
• No being a Republican.
• No being Pro-Choice.
• No being Pro-Life.
• No watching MSNBC.
• No rooting for Ohio State University (OK, this is mine, I admit it. I think God’s OK with it.)

Freedom is about worship. Freedom is about coming to the God of the universe and being with him and with his people. There are no longer divisions. The boundary markers of in and out are changed they are now spiritual and communal. They are no longer based on law.

What’s your list? How does it need to change? Are you building barriers on behalf of God? Are you OK with God’s dismantling of barriers through the crucifixion of Jesus?

Apr 8, 2010 ∞

A Deeper Reflection: Glenn Beck Revisited

Tonight I heard Dr. Mark Noll say, “I think we should largely ignore talking heads on TV unless they are discussing a college basketball tournament.” Wise words. However, twice now I have had conversations relating to a previous post that I wrote on Glenn Beck’s discussion of social justice. Here is a more nuanced response to the issues including a little perspective on Rev. Jim Wallis too. I hope you find it helpful. (Also, I was under the weather today and was unable to write the next post for our discussion of freedom and the law.)

To hopefully bring some clarity to my position I want give disclosure of my political presuppositions:

• I don’t adhere to a political party. Neither party is representative of the Christian worldview.
• My primary allegiance is not to the United States, it is to Jesus Christ and his church. I live in this country only by the grace of God and I am very thankful for being a citizen of the US but my king is Jesus and the solutions to the problems we face are found in the context of the gospel and not on Capitol Hill, a savior there will never be found.
• The Scriptures contained in the Older and Newer Testaments are the authority by which we are to live and ought to inform our understanding of any human document.
• Any government or government agency that claims divine authority or claims to speak for God is inherently unbiblical for God reveals himself through the Scriptures and he alone is to be king.

As to the Glenn Beck situation:

• I have watched only two episodes of Glenn Beck.
• I have read his comments regarding churches and social justice.
• My understanding is that his worldview is Mormon.

I understand the points that he has made regarding the use of the term “social justice” and “economic justice” by those in the liberal political wing. I agree with how he defines these terms from his perspective. Glenn Beck’s comments, however, were not in relation to the liberal political wing, they were in the context of the church. The church defines the term “social justice” and “economic justice” very differently.

First, “social justice” in the context of the church refers to the idea of bringing biblical justice at a societal level. The church has always participated in this kind of justice because it is the natural response of Christ followers to seek to transform the world around them with the gospel. The Older Testament speaks often of this kind of social justice, especially in context of the “jubilee”, this was the application of the Sabbath to all of society (Leviticus 25). These are commands, not suggestions. We also find in the Older Testament specific commands on how to deal with the widow, fatherless, and alien (Deuteronomy 27). Justice in the Older Testament appears 425 times in the Hebrew and close to 500 times in the Newer Testament. I believe it is safe to say that this is an important theme in the Bible and God’s people have always understood it as such.

Here are some historical examples of the church doing social justice:

• Ending infanticide in the first century. Babies that were unwanted in the Roman empire were simply left on the side of the road. The church would pick them up and care for them as their own. This was done on such a large scale that infanticide was all but ended in the Roman Empire.
• Abolition. It was the church that spear headed the abolition movement both in Europe and in the United States. This was accomplished through full force engagement in the political realm through electing abolitionist candidates along with preaching and writing.
• Prohibition. The church at large determined that the consumption of alcohol was an unnecessary evil and again brought full political pressure to bear and was able to get alcohol banned. Thankfully, it was repealed as this was a wrong headed movement in the church.
• Women’s suffrage. The church led the movement to bring about justice to women so that they could vote in the United States.
• Civil Rights. The church led the movement to bring an end to systemic racism toward ethnic minorities in the United States.
• Pro-life. The church has led the movement to bring an end to the destruction of millions of innocent lives through the practice of legalized abortion on demand.
• AIDS relief. The church has led the effort to bring AIDS relief to Africa where AIDS runs rampant.
• Urban and rural poverty. The church continues to be on the forefront of bringing relief to the urban and rural poor in the US.

These are but a handful of the historic social justice efforts of the church. So, when a church says that it is concerned with social justice they are moving out from the heart of God as commanded us by the Scriptures. This is because the Scriptures are concerned about bringing redemption to the whole of creation, not simply to individual lives as Mormonism teaches.

Two passages in particular speak to the necessity of the church to engage in bringing justice. First, from the Older Testament we have “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8 ESV). The prophecy of Micah is deeply concerned with issues of justice as the people of God had moved away from dealing justly with one another and had become greedy and self-centered. They had abandoned the principles of mercy and justice. Micah 6:8 is a turning point in the book. The question is asked, “What does God want from us?” And the answer is simple: do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. Justice is central to the minimum requirements that God asks of his people.

The second passage is from Matthew’s Gospel:

““When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.””
(Matthew 25:31–46 ESV)

Here we see Jesus discussing the application of the gospel. If we know him then we will do certain things. We will respond to him by feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the poor, visiting the sick, and visiting the imprisoned. Those who take no concern of these things prove not to truly know Jesus. This is social justice according to Jesus.

In light of this, what do we make of Glenn Beck’s comments?

• He does not understand that the Bible calls the church to engage with the world and bring justice.
• His call for people to leave their church is at worst a veiled attempt by Mormonism to draw more people into their cult, at best, is ignorance regarding the role of the church in the world.
• He is not a Christian and ought not to speak to Christians concerning what we believe since he does not hold the Bible as the authoritative word of God.
• His position comes from a place of politics where he believes his political theory is able to save the world and for the Christian only Jesus Christ can do this.

In light of the Biblical teaching on justice what do we make of Jim Wallis’s position?

• The government is not the means by which social justice is to come about but it is to brought through the local church.
• If the government is taking this responsibility it means that the church has abdicated its responsibility to care for the poor and dispossessed and as a pastor he needs to be calling the church to action not handing it over to the government.
• The church is to be socially active and politically active but is to find its hope in Christ alone and should not align itself with a political party.

I am fairly well connected within the church world. I have a pretty broad knowledge and in many cases specific knowledge of how churches engage in social justice. I know of none that are biblically sound who turn funds over to the federal, state, or local governments. This is against IRS non-profit law. They would lose their tax exempt status by doing so. I do know that under George W. Bush’s Faith Based Initiative that many churches received federal funding to carry out their social justice programs. This created great problems for many of these churches as they became tied into the federal government in such a way that was unbiblical and forced them to break their own principles regarding hiring of staff.

From a biblical perspective we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. I hope that tax deductible gifting will continue for non-profit organizations it is a blessing that our country has provided. However, churches will deal with what comes and the gospel will continue to go out meeting the spiritual and physical needs of people.

Finally, our responsibility as Christians is faithfully and purposefully engage in the political process. This means that we must do what is needed to bring about the election of men and women who will rule from a biblical worldview. This is why in the last presidential election I wrote in my vote as I did not believe the two parties provided me with a proper option. In my opinion this candidate was the only candidate that represented a Christian worldview. The other candidates espoused a secular humanist perspective.

In short, we deal with many of the problems we do because of the inactivity and idleness of the church. If we would engage as we ought many of these problems would disappear.

Here is push back to my position:

Here’s what Sojourners says “… social justice can only be achieved by the recognition that capitalism and the economic inequality it produces must be replaced by a “classless” society wherein all differences in wealth and property have been eliminated.“ Just a little bit different definition, huh? Their leader, Jim Wallis, called the USA ”… the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs.“

Regarding Glenn Beck, yeah, he’s a Mormon. My dislike of that religion mirrors yours. But I think what he’s trying to accomplish is not some missionary event for the LDS, but rather warning all church members to be on the lookout for the use of the term “social justice” by their own church. If that church defines it the way you do, great, not a problem. But if the church’s definition more closely matches that of the Sojourners, then you ought to leave immediately. Basically, he’s telling people to do their homework. Churches are still ran by “men” which to me means there is always the possibility that they could go astray and that we should always be holding them accountable. Again, the Progressives have taken a term that sounds innocent enough and have perverted it into something completely different. Think about it this way, what if someone in your church was promoting a special collection to promote a project for “social justice”. Odds are, you wouldn’t have thought twice about it. After all, it sounds good enough. But now, I bet you would look into it a bit further, wouldn’t you? That’s really what Glenn Beck is saying, look deeper into what definition is being used. Mormon or not, I think it’s good advice.

My Response:

Yes, the definition of Sojourners is off base and I would argue is not scripturally supported. So, it seems that this is one of those times where maybe Beck has been a bit “sloppy”. I run across this often as I interact with people in the church realm who are in the spotlight. They take important and nuanced issues and reduce them to the point where they are saying things that they maybe they ought not to say.

I am beginning to think that this situation with Beck is someone doing just this. He has taken a nuanced issue and become overly reductionistic. The reality is that most of his audience does not attend the kind of church where this happens (I am guessing he is drawing from african-american, urban, pentecostal, liberation types) and this is why the backlash was so strong. This is all combined with the overly individualistic theology of his Mormon worldview and it translates into people like me who normally would find much in common with his position experiencing big red flags!

I will definitely be listening/reading him with a different, more generous, eye in the future as a result of our conversation!

Conclusion

I hope that by putting this snapshot of a conversation out there I can show that there are two sides to the coin. Both are concerned with big issues but both are coming from two very different perspectives. As a result we can talk past one another. This was a fruitful and helpful conversation where we both actually listened to one another.

Apr 6, 2010 ∞

That Dirty Rotten…oh, Really!?

We spent some time looking at Jesus’ discussion about fulfilling the law. Now, I want to look at another of the stories that bring to the forefront the issue of freedom and the law. This one is found in Matthew 8:5–13:

“When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.”But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.”

You might be asking “what does this have to do with freedom and the law?” I think that has everything to do with freedom and the law. A Roman Centurion, the very image of imperial power comes to Jesus, a backwoods, Jewish rabbi and asks him to heal his servant. The word “appealing” is παρακαλῶν and it really is pointing to an “urgent exhortation”. Eugene Peterson renders it, “came up in a panic”. I think that this is a great picture. How humiliating it would have been. Then this Centurion, this image of Rome’s great power and might did the unthinkable, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof.” Truly, a remarkable image for those standing around watching. Rome was yielding authority to a Jewish rabbi. Incredible!

Jesus’ comment is even more amazing! He uses this as an opportunity to teach that the Kingdom is open to people such as this: tools of the Emperor’s oppressive regime will be invited to table fellowship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! This is remarkable! The violent, oppressive Gentiles are invited to the table? The sons of the kingdom are thrown into outer darkness? How can this be?

Luke’s account gives us a bit more insight into the matter:

“After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. Now a centurion had a servant who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well.”

(Luke 7:1–10 ESV)

We learn now that the Centurion is a man who loved the Jews. He even built their synagogue. It appears that this Centurion was a “God-fearer”. Most likely he was a not a convert to Judaism or the Jewish Elders would have made that clear to Jesus. This was a man who believed in God. His faith was such that he could not bear to have Jesus enter his home. He was “poor in spirit” and he would come to inherit the kingdom!

Jesus was free to heal and forgive this man. He was free to invite him to table fellowship with the patriarchs. The law said otherwise (or one would assume so). Freedom is again found in the breaking down of barriers between people and God. This Roman Centurion had great faith and could happily receive the fellowship of the great cloud of witnesses without worry because, “for freedom Christ set us free.”

This Centurion was the very image of the world and all of its trappings. He had money, power, and authority. Yet, his humble faith found him a place at the table. Our freedom comes from humility and it is in this humility that we can sup with “the world”. It is with humility that we can be “in the world” and “not of the world.” We enter in with those around us freely because the table is open and any may come to it. Grace has bought a spot for any who would trust in the faithfulness of Jesus.

Apr 2, 2010 ∞

The Dawn Breaks: Freedom Breaking Through

We have evaluated the great verse on freedom, Galatians 5:1 and now I want to go back. I want to look a the first in-breaking of freedom in the gospel of Matthew. We find it in Matthew 5:17–20:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17–20 ESV)

This passage is insightful for us to begin getting a sense of Jesus’s thoughts on the law and of freedom. This passage from Matthew is unique, it is not found in the other synoptics or John (Luke 16:14–17 might be considered parallel but is so different that this is unlikely). However, there is a very clear allusion to this passage in Romans 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Paul’s epistle to the Romans came prior to Matthew’s writing of the gospel. Matthew was also very likely to be from Anitoch (which was Paul’s sending community). I think that we should be mindful of the influence of Paul and Matthew and Matthew on Paul. This reality will help us to determine in greater depth what is going on here in the narrative.

This passage is in the heart of the “Sermon on the Mount” and Jesus is speaking to the masses. Verse 17 is critical as it sets up the rest of the teaching, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” Why does Jesus say this? It is because he is setting the stage for what will follow where he says, “You have heard it said…But I tell you…” Jesus is making clear that he is in no way setting aside the Older Testament. He is taking it to the next level.

There are some disconcerting comments made in this passage. First, anyone who relaxes the law will be called least in the kingdom and to enter the kingdom of heaven you have to have greater righteousness than that of the Pharisees. This is an incredible statement! The Pharisees were amazingly righteous men. They had laws upon laws to make sure that they never broke a single law. The Pharisees fasted, prayed, and gave. They knew the Scriptures better than anyone (well except for Jesus, since he inspired them and all that! This is a hard teaching.

But, we have the rest of the story. Two key words that I want to point out: πληρῶσαι and γένηται these are the terms that we translate as “fulfill” and “accomplished”. These are key for us who have the rest of the story. πληρῶσαι is the Aorist Active Infintive. The aspect of the Aorist is a completed work. Jesus is saying that he will complete the fulfilling of the law and prophets. How can he do this? He can do this living a perfect life. He goes on to say that nothing will pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. All what? All the Law. Jesus did this. In himself he did all the law, he fulfilled it. In a singular moment he brought about the final and perfect fulfillment of the Law.

I hope the logic here is becoming clear. The righteousness that he talking about, the greater righteousness is his own. There is no hope of living the Law with perfection. One cannot do it apart from divine aid. The divine one, the God-man himself is the only one who can bring about this fulfillment. Therefore, as we trust in his faithful fulfillment we find our righteousness. Remember Romans 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

The dawn is breaking. The Law and the Prophets are fulfilled in Christ. We move from here to begin to see this reality played out on the stage of life. But, that’s for the next post.

Apr 1, 2010 ∞

Coming Apart at the Seams: Hebrews 4:14–5:4

[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-100328-reduced.mp3[/podcast]

Mar 31, 2010 ∞

You Can’t DO THAT! YES I CAN! NO YOU CAN’T!!!

Yesterday we began exploring Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free, stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” We explored the historical and literary context a bit. Today, I want to draw some conclusions regarding freedom. The key word in the verse is “freedom”. It is ἐλευθερίᾳ in the Greek text in the dative. ἐλευθερία is a word that that at its heart means liberty in the context of becoming free from slavery. Why is it in the dative? What is the purpose of this case here? This is the dative of interest which is a subset of the indirect object (Wallace, 143). This means that Christ set the Galatians free “for the benefit” of freedom.

Think about this for a moment. Christ set them free. Why? He set them free so that they would experience freedom. This means that they were, at some point, not free. What were they not free from? To what were they enslaved? Remember Paul is discussing in Galatians what it means to be “in Christ”. How can someone know they are in the community as opposed to be outside of the community. The Galatian converts were confused and needed direction. They turned to the other community of “the Book” and were informed that they needed to follow certain rituals. These rituals concerned table fellowship, festivals, and circumcision. These boundary markers, that have been thoroughly discussed by Wright, Dunn, Schreiner, and others, are the very things that are causing Paul such consternation.

The Galatians were becoming enslaved to boundaries of in/out that were obliterated in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In chapters three and four Paul laid out the differentiation between the law and the promise. Now he brings them to the point of action where they must realize that these laws are not necessary for them to interact with God. They do not need to become Jewish to be in Christ. Christ has set loose the boundaries of who is in and who is out. There is now freedom to live as they are in Christ.

Freedom here, therefore, is a liberation from a law which mandated one identify oneself by doing certain activities. The community of the people is open and free, the boundary markers have been shifted (baptism and communion, another series of posts coming soon). The outworking of being “justified” is inclusion or exclusion from the community of God. One cannot be “in the camp” if they are not justified. Justification prior to Christ came through the law, the following of mandated requirements to show that one was in the community of faith. Christ’s coming freed humanity from this stricture because he himself fulfilled these requirements and provides a means by his crucifixion and resurrection to enter into the community by faith alone, trusting in his finished work.

Paul anticipates the critics, “Freedom leads to license!” Not so, says Paul. This freeing from the old boundaries frees us “through love to serve one another. (5:13b)” Why? The freedom from boundary markers that separate one people from another allows us to love all those that come across our paths. We no longer have to concern ourselves with the issues that drove Jesus’s parable of the good Samaritan.

Summary idea: Freedom in Galatians 5:1 is the freedom for anyone to be in God’s community and for us to relate to God as who we are and to serve anyone regardless of who they are.

Mar 30, 2010 ∞

Frrrrreeeedom!!! (Yes, read this with a Scottish brogue) Pt. 1

Whenever I think about freedom, I think about William Wallace. Is it because I have Scottish blood running through my veins? Maybe. Is it because of Braveheart (one of the greatest ‘guy’ movies ever)? Maybe. I like to think it is because the story of Scottish liberation from the tyranny of the English is powerful, beautiful, and thrilling. I like to think it is because the imagery of a small revolutionary movement, spear-headed by a single passionate leader is what I long to see happen in the church. I hope it’s also because freedom is something that is full of beauty, hope, and trust.

Galatians 5:1 says, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” This little sentence has been the cause of a great many problems even though it was meant to be the solution of a great many problems. You know the old saying, “Give them and inch and they take a mile”? This is how many feel about Galatians 5:1. Why did Paul give them an inch? Why did he not call the Galatians to follow the ten commandments? I think that this is a wonderful starting point in our journey about law and grace.

The problem with beginning at Galatians 5:1 is that it is near the end of the letter to the Galatians. To get a good sense of what is happening we must understand the context from which this verse comes, both historically and literarily.

Where do we begin? Let’s begin with the situation to which Paul was writing. There was a significant Jewish minority in the region of Galatia, stemming from the fact that approximately 2,000 Jewish families were forced to relocate to the region in the second century BC. As the Galatian converts, whether Jew or Gentile, were coming into contact with the large Jewish minority they were facing questions that needed answers. The key question being in reference to what it meant for a person to be included in the community of faith. 

This historical setting is critical to coming to an understanding of what is happening in Galatians 5:1. The community of faith wanted answers. These answers were not coming from the reality of the crucified messiah but from a Jewish tradition that did not always line up with grace. The general answer that this little group of Galatian converts were receiving was that to be in the community of faith you are to do certain things and not do certains things. This was a law that brought guilt, shame, and dishonor to most that sought to uphold it.

The literary context of 5:1 is also important. In Galatians 4 Paul has illustrated the difference of being under the law and under grace by comparing Hagar and Sarah. Following his brief discussion on freedom he moves on to look at the practical outworking of being a Christ follower in the second half of chapter 5 and chapter 6.

This issue of freedom is important because Paul is juxtaposing it against living under the law and equates is to living under grace. Therefore, we must grapple with what Paul is saying in 5:1 and come to some conclusions. We will pick this up tomorrow, so that the posts don’t get too long.

James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1999), 213.

Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, (InterVarsity Press: DownersGrove, IL, 1990), 175–177.

Mar 29, 2010 ∞

Where we are going now?

Now that we have finished our travels through Brian McLaren’s newest book I have been pondering what’s next. For a while now I have been chewing on the dual topic of freedom and law. What does Christian freedom mean? What is the role of the law this side of the cross? How does this affect our interaction with culture, religions, and one another? How do we know if we go beyond freedom and move into active disobedience? I am hoping that we can bring some clarity to some of these issues and also find some application for them over the next few days.

As we conclude the discussion on freedom and the law, we will then begin to explore the sacraments. I wrote a couple posts about this topic a couple of years ago but my thinking has developed a bit more. I am hopeful that we can engage in a dialogue surrounding baptism and communion that will help us to think about these two means of grace can help us engage with the world around us.

I am looking forward to the adventure. I hope that you will join me and that we can have some healthy conversations along the way. It’s much more fun when we do!

Mar 27, 2010 ∞

A follow up to “A New Kind of Christianity”

I saw this today and that it would be great to link these four posts for you. Emergent Village did an interview with Brian McLaren. So, if you are not reading his book you can at least hear him talk in his own words. I thought it was a good interview and will help give you more insight into his positions. While many of my own issues are not dealt with, he gives you more to think about.

Melvin Bray and Brian McLaren — Pt. 1

Melvin Bray and Brian McLaren — Pt. 2

Melvin Bray and Brian McLaren — Pt. 3

Melvin Bray and Brian McLaren — Pt. 4

Mar 26, 2010 ∞

So what? or The What-Do-We-Do-Now Question

This is the tenth and final post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The What-Do-We-Do-Now Question: How can we translate our quest into action?

The final question that McLaren presents us with is really not a question that the Church is asking but is the question that the movement he is calling for needs to ask. This full out application, how do we move forward in light of the answers given to the previous nine questions? To answer this question McLaren turns to historians to help frame his answer. Specifically he calls on the macro-historian to help us understand where we are in the human quest. He labels each movement of humanity with a color of the rainbow.

• The Red Zone: The Quest for Survival: This is where all humanity begins. We have a need for food, water, shelter and look to the gods or God to provide this for us.
• The Orange Zone: The Quest for Security: We look to the gods of God to be our Warrior, Protector, Provider in relation to other clans. Current example: Current examples: Prosperity Gospel Churches and Pentecostals.
• The Yellow Zone: The Quest for Power: We developed city-states and needed God to ordain them as good to keep the people in line under the authority of kings and emperors. Current examples: Fundamentalists and Hyper Calvinists.
• The Green Zone: The Quest for Independence: We found the earthly kings to be oppressors and so we needed God to become a judge who mandated laws and punishment. Current examples: Those developing systematic theology.
• The Blue Zone: The Quest for Individuality: Thanks to law and judgment based on rationality we are now free to pursue God’s “blessing” on our plans and salvation became individualistic. Current example: Mega-churches.
• The Indigo Zone: The Quest for Honesty: We realize that through our rampant individualism we have done great harm to the creation and one another in the name of God and we call for an honest re-assessment. Current example: Emergent Church Movement.
• The Violet Zone: The Quest for Ubuntu: Once we have come to the place of honesty where we are humbled we begin the seventh quest for healing. This is the peace, shalom, or ubuntu: embracing one-anotherness, common-goodness, and interconnectedness.

In light of this, McLaren argues, that we need to have “indigo” Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and others come together to create a “violet” zone where healing and unity can take place. This zone,

“…challenges us, then, to learn to see in a completely new and unpracticed way, to forgo seeing previous stages in the old dualistic terms of good/evil or right/wrong. As we get acclimated to the violet zone, we learn to see all previous zones as appropriate and adequate for their context, just as we consider infancy, childhood, and adolescence as appropriate and adequate in their time, not bad, evil, or wrong. Similarly, the new stage into which we are growing isn’t right; it’s simply appropriate and adequate for the challenges we now face. (237)”

To support this religious evolutionary mindset McLaren argues from 1 Corinthians 13:11–14:1:

“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”
(1 Corinthians 13:11–14:1 ESV)

It is here that McLaren sees Paul calling for an evolution in our understanding. He argues that Paul is calling for a consistent move away from exclusive faith to an inclusive faith because in so doing we find greater wholeness and ubuntu.

Reflections

I appreciate McLaren’s desire to bring some closure to the discussion. I am thankful that in this chapter he has laid his cards on the table and allowed us to fully understand his presuppositions. I also think that his use of other disciplines is warranted and appreciated. It is always helpful for us to think through our faith from the macro-historical level.

I read this chapter and my breaking heart finally broke. I found so much in this work that I appreciate but this heart broke me because in it I found that McLaren was not calling for a new kind of Christianity just an old kind of religious pluralism. I felt as though I was reading John Hick from nearly fifteen years ago. McLaren could have just pointed us to a Newsweek article on how we are all becoming Hindus and made it easier on himself.

The treatment of 1 Cor 13:11–14:1 does not do justice to the passage and ignores it’s immediate context. The problems that the Corinthians had was in-house. This passage is in connection to the worship service and is followed by chapter fifteen’s description of the resurrection and its centrality to the faith.

Conclusion

To close these posts I want to say that I recommend a reading of McLaren’s text. The reason is that it provides a good dialogue partner. McLaren raises many questions that need to be answered. In the near future I will seek to give my own perspectives on these ten questions. Some of the answers are better than others. Some of the pendulum swings are necessary and good. However, at the end all of this is left wanting because Jesus the crucified and resurrected God the Son is strangely absent. His uniqueness is set aside in the name of “peace”. Yet Paul in his letter to the Romans is quite clear, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Mar 25, 2010 ∞

Why Don’t You Eat Cows? or The Pluralism Question

This is the ninth post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Pluralism Question: How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?

McLaren begins his chapter on pluralism by setting the stage with this statement:

“If we want to get on the right side of the life-and-death divide, we need to start with some sober, serious, old-fashioned repentance, starting with this admission: Christianity has a nauseating, infuriating, depressing record when it comes to encountering people of other religions (and a not much better record when encountering people of other brands of Christianity either). (208)”

The question he determines to answer is, “how do we find a better approach to the religiously other in our quest for a new kind of Christianity?” This is in contrast the various genocides, abuses, and oppression that Christianity has perpetrated over the course of the centuries. The answer is straightforward:

When I’m asked about pluralism in my travels, I generally return to Jesus’s simple teachings of neighborliness such as the Golden Rule, “Our first responsibility as followers of Jesus is to treat people of other religions with the same respect we would want to receive from them. When you are kind and respectful to followers of other religions, you are not being unfaithful to Jesus; you are being faithful to him.” Then I ask them how they would want people of other religions to treat them. They typically say things like: “I would want them to respect my faith, show interest in it and learn about it, not constantly attack it, find points of agreement that they could affirm, respectfully disagree where necessary — but not let disagreement shatter the friendship, share about their faith without pressuring me to convert, invite me to share my with them, include me in their social life without making me feel odd,” and so on. After each reply, I generally say, “That sounds great. Go and do likewise.” (211–212)

McLaren goes on to discuss John 14:6, “And Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father but through me.” First, he argues that the context is talking about the Temple and not heaven. John 14:1–3 reads:

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.And you know the way to where I am going.”

Here he argues that the phrase “Father’s house” is in reference to the Temple because the last time the phrase is used in John’s gospel is when Jesus “cleansed the Temple” in John 2. McLaren argues that unless it is explicitly stated otherwise we should assume continuity in the terms. However, Jesus has said that he is changing the rules from an earthly temple to his body. Therefore, he is calling them into a “new-people-of-God-as-temple”.

He goes on to state that the disciples concerns are not in reference to others but themselves. They want to know where he is going. They do not understand. Therefore, the words that Jesus states in verse 6 in response to Thomas’ question about what to do after he dies. McLaren argues that Jesus is saying, “Thomas, you know the way, the truth, and the life. It’s me. Just remember me and do what I did and you will find your way into my new temple, my peaceable kingdom here on this earth.” The “no one” then of verse 6 is the disciples, only. That if you look at Jesus you see the Father and all is well. This alternative understanding of John 14:6 should make us realize that the Christian faith is in no way calling for a soul-sort between other religions, but to serve, love, and respect them.

Reflections

I appreciate that once again McLaren is able to bring to the surface again a huge issue that makes many Christians squeamish. I am also thankful that he calls the institutional Church to the dock and finds them guilty of great horrors in the name of Jesus. I think he is right that we as the corporate body of Christ needs to continue the process of repentance for our ancestors and own them as part of our history. I also agree that we are called to treat people of religions with respect, charity, and grace.

Unfortunately I think that he has done violence to the text of John. Let’s take a moment and look at this. First, the context of John 14 is Jesus’ preparation of the disciples for his death and what comes next. In chapter 13 Jesus washes their feet and tells them about his betrayal and Peter’s denial. But, he wants to raise their understanding from the immediate circumstances to the bigger picture.

We come to John 14:1 and Jesus’ comforting words that proclaim his preparation on their behalf in his father’s house. The most likely and simple understanding of this is that he is referring to heaven. Why? Because the context is his death. There would not be place for him to prepare for his disciples anywhere else. Then he refers to his return and his calling the disciples to himself.

Thomas asks the “what’s the way” question. Jesus responds with “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” How do they get to the Father’s house? They get there by embracing Jesus. There is no other way. It seems here that Jesus is making a point here by repeating the article three times (which would have been unnecessary in the Aramaic and is unnecessary in the Greek). To come to the Father there is but one way.

I agree with McLaren that the key to the passage is not John 14:6 but John 14:9b: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” This points to the divinity of Jesus and his uniqueness.

The argument that “Father’s house” relates to the earthly temple does not jive. Jewish understanding of the Temple was that it was a shadow of heaven. Therefore, it makes sense that Jesus is turning their understanding upside down. It is no longer through the sacrificial system that people get right with God but through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, God the Son. The earthly Temple is replaced by full entrance into the real Father’s house. No longer would his people be worshiping in shadows but in spirit and truth (John 4:23–24).

If we really love people then we must call them to faith in Christ. Again, McLaren leaves us wanting more. If a man is about to drink poison we can respectfully ask him to stop. But, at some point there is a necessity to stop him from killing himself if we really love him.

I think that Penn Gillette said it well, “How much do you have to hate someone to not proselytize them?”

Mar 24, 2010 ∞

Where’s that Magic Eight Ball? or The Future Question

This is the eighth post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Future Question: Can we find a better way of viewing the future?

McLaren now sets to go to work on dispensational eschatology in his third question regarding the application of a new kind of Christianity. He paints a humorous and relatively accurate picture of the dispensational premillenial understanding of eschatology. McLaren sees in this understanding of the eschaton the inherent willingness to destruction and war because Jesus is coming back and will be setting the world right through massive bloodletting in the war of the apocalypse.

If this is the old way of understanding the future, then what is the right way? We are to understand the eschaton not from a perspective of a “fixed end point toward which we move, but rather a widening space opening into an infinitely expanding goodness. (195)” We are to reject the “soul/sort” universe where people are eternally sorted into eternal bins marked “redeemed” or “damned”.

No, the future is un-doomed (195). Jesus, by inaugurating his peaceable kingdom brings resurrection, liberation, reconciliation, and salvation. Judgment is the forgetting or destruction of things which are deemed unworthy and the good things of a person’s life will be saved, remembered, brought back for a new beginning.

McLaren argues for what he calls a “participatory eschatology” where we participate in God’s work and we anticipate it’s ultimate success (20o-201).

Reflection

Anytime that the predominant dispensational premillenialist view of the eschaton is brought into question I am grateful. This understanding of Christ’s return is damaging and does violence to the text. It indeed brings about the concerns that McLaren highlights. Much of what is said in answering this question is to be commended.

I do find that there are two key problems that need to be highlighted (McLaren also does a poor job of handling the term, “parousia” but responding to that would make this post too long!). First, the issue of judgment from McLaren’s perspective is problematic in that it does not take into account the text. It is not that someone foisted the idea of “soul-sort” onto the text. Jesus describes the time when when he will sort the sheep from the goats. This is not simply a “forgetting” of the things that Jesus did not appreciate. This is a casting out from his presence. McLaren simply goes too far and is wrong.

The second problem is greater than the first. The second problem is that there is no sense of an actual end a “telos” if you will. The eschatology that McLaren proposes does not include an ending of time where we see a real redemption of all things. We do not see any understanding or description of the life to come. What we do have is a works based, faithless, evolutionary understanding of Christian religiosity.

I would encourage McLaren to spend some time reading and understanding fully amillenialism. This perspective handles his concerns and remains true to the biblical text.

Mar 23, 2010 ∞

It’s All About Sex Baby! or The Sex Question

This is the seventh post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Sex Question: Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?

McLaren begins this second question of application in a way that plays to our prejudices (it’s a fantastic bit of writing!). He paints the picture of what many Christians would consider to be the “homosexual movement”. However, he is really painting a picture of what he calls “fundasexuality” which is centered on “heterophobia” or the fear of the different. He says that this is packaged in many forms, “Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or even atheist. (174–175)” McLaren goes on to argue that sociology tells us that “groups can exist without a god, but no group can exist without a devil (175).” Who is the devil for the fundasexualist? Gays, lesbians, bisexual, and trans-gendered people.

The argument against “fundasexualism” is built on the story of Ethiopian eunuch from Acts 8. I think I rightly summarize the argument this way:

• The Ethiopian eunuch had visited Jerusalem to worship.
• The Ethiopian eunuch had not been allowed to worship because he was not Jewish and Deuteronomy 23:1 prohibited a eunuch from doing so.
• The Ethiopian eunuch hears the gospel of creation, liberation, and reconciliation “embodied in a man who was stripped naked and publicly humiliated, despised, rejected, and misunderstood, a man without physical descendants, a man who was cut and scarred forever.” This is a man to whom the Ehtiopian eunuch can relate.
• The Ethiopian eunuch who was condemned “by the Jewish scriptures” now has found entrance into the kingdom of God and requests baptism. Which he is by Philip.
• The Ethiopian eunuch a “non-heterosexual” becomes a missional leader taking the gospel to Ethiopia.

This argument is then extrapolated to be inclusive of homosexuals and undocumented aliens.

McLaren continues to paint the horrific picture of sexual brokenness that exists in the heterosexual world and within the church. The list of sexual sin is long, painful, and honest.

The solution? “We must pursue a practical, down-to-earth theology and an honest, fully embodied spirituality that speak truthfully and openly about our sexuality, in all its straight and gay complexity.(189)”

Reflections

I continue to appreciate the fact that McLaren does not let us get away from the hard questions that face us today. Sex is the predominant topic everywhere. Ads, pop culture, the news, and even Sportscenter: sex overshadows it all. I agree with McLaren that the dialogue must be opened. We have to have the conversation, no, we need to have the conversation. I also agree that we must move beyond the binary, “I’m right, you’re wrong” bickering. I agree with McLaren’s conclusion.

There are parts of the discussion that I disagree with though. I think that he makes a leap with Ethiopian eunuch. There is nothing in the text which tells us of his gender identity. We simply know of his physical limitation to carry out the sex act. This has nothing to do with gender. To make the leap that he was “non-heterosexual” is too far and it is too far to assume that he was “heterosexual”. I think that his sexual identity is not the question at hand. I think that McLaren rightly identifies the issue of the Ethiopian eunuch not being allowed to worship, but is wrong when he asserts it has to do with gender identity.

I come back to the same issue as I have had so many times before. How? At this point in the text McLaren has removed all means by which to have any kind of authoritative ethic. Sexual conduct is of deep concern in the Scriptures and there is an expectation of honoring God with our bodies and there are limits. However, if the Scriptures are simply one voice in the discussion then we can regulate them to a more primitive idea and that we have evolved past their prescriptions for healthy lives. This is very dangerous and unwise.

The sexual brokenness that exists in our world is in desperate of not only a “man who was stripped naked and publicly humiliated, despised, rejected, and misunderstood, a man without physical descendants, a man who was cut and scarred forever” but a man who also died and rose again and in so doing made a way for reconciliation between God and people, people and creation, and people and people.

Mar 22, 2010 ∞

You get up on Sunday and do what!? or the Church Question

This is the sixth post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Church Question: What do we do about the church?

This is the first of five questions on how McLaren sees his vision of A New Kind of Christianity working itself out practically in the real world. McLaren paints a sad and realistic picture of the church. He says that owe are “divided, immature, confused about our purpose and identity, in danger of fragmenting our way into nonexistence, all at once bending over backwards and straddling fences, stiff of neck and soft of spine, and otherwise twisted and contorted in compromise. We have financial problems, sexual controversies, pride problems, schism threats, excesses in some forms of spirituality and deficits in others, and all manner of authority issues (165–166).” It is not a rosy outlook. McLaren reminds us that these were the same issues that the Corinthians faced and so he sets out to show how Paul dealt with these issues in 1 Corinthians.

Paul’s perspective, according to McLaren, can be summarized this way, ”…the church most truly is: it is a space in which the Spirit works to form Christlike people, and it is the space in which human beings, formed in Christlike love, cooperate with the Spirit and one another to express that love in word and deed, art and action. (171)“

We are to become a people who take action by “listening, dialogue, appreciate inquiry, understanding, preemptive peacemaking, reconciliation, nonviolence, prophetic confrontation, advocacy, generosity, and personal and social transformation (171).” This is the mission of the church.

Reflections

I think that the picture that is painted of the church here is beautiful, powerful, and engaging. I think that McLaren has hit on something that we need to embrace again. If the Church looked like this then we would see a renewed engagement with the world that is far from Christ. We would see movements that seek to transform culture and build bridges to the gospel.

Nevertheless, there is something missing. I found myself getting excited about the picture that he was painting as it is very similar to the dream and picture I have of the Church. It is challenging. It calls the Church to a higher standard. However, in his exposition of 1 Corinthians there was again the absence of the discussion of the cross and the resurrection. McLaren handled the issues of knowledge, love, and power with insight but again excluded the cross.

Again, I must beg for more. I am concerned that McLaren “The Pendulum Swinger” (as a friend calls him) has removed the pendulum.

Mar 19, 2010 ∞

Extra, Extra, Good News!!! or the Gospel Question

This is the fifth post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Gospel Question: What is the Gospel

The question of the gospel is critical. It is critical because in his letter to the Galatians, Paul says it is. McLaren specifically sets out to refute the following line of reasoning:

I had always assumed that “kingdom of God” meant “kingdom of heaven, ” which meant “going to heaven after you die,” which required believing the message of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, which I understood to teach a theory of atonement called “penal substitution,” which was the basis for a formula for forgiveness of original sin called “justification by grace through faith.” (138)

This description of the gospel now explicitly clarifies what McLaren believes the six-line diagram of Christianity to be teaching. He calls those that hold to the six-line diagram to “repent” as he has done (138).

So what is the gospel? McLaren calls us to read Paul through the Gospels because as we do so we will ultimately be reading Paul through Jesus. This means then that the gospel becomes very clear, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (Mark 1:15) So, what does this mean?

First, the free gift of God is being born again into a new life into a new participation in a new Genesis. Second, it means beginning a new Exodus by passing through the waters of baptism (as opposed the Red Sea). Finally, it means receiving the kingdom of God to become a “citizen of a new kingdom, the peaceable kingdom imagined by the prophets and inaugurated in Christ, learning its ways (as a disciple) and demonstrating in word and deed its presence and availability to all (as an apostle). (139). ”

McLaren argues this from an exposition of Romans where he argues for seven moves that Paul makes (Chapter 15):

1. Reduce Jew and Gentile to the same level of need (Rom 1:18–3:20)
2. Announce a new way forward for all, Jew and Gentile: the way of faith (Rom 3:21–4:25)
3. Unite all in a common story, with four illustrations: Adam, baptism, slavery, and remarriage (Rom 5:1–7:6)
4. Unite all in a common struggle and a common victory, illustrated by two stories: the Story of Me and the Story of We (Rom 7:7–8:39)
5. Address Jewish and gentile problems, showing God as God of all (9:1–11:36)
6. Engage all in a common life and mission (Rom 12:1–13:14)
7. Call everyone to unity in the kingdom of God (Rom 14:1–16:27)

Reflections

This chapter was tough for me. It was tough because for the first time I am having a hard time finding the connection. However, I think that there is something that we need to remember and be reminded of over and over. McLaren says, “Jesus’s gospel of the kingdom must welcome Jews in their Jewishness and Gentiles in their goyishness, and Paul whats to show how that can be. (144)” I say to that a hearty, “AMEN!” We too often ignore the issues related to social identity and that the fact that in Christ, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are on in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)” This points to the fact that “converting” is not converting away from one aspect of your identity but becoming something new, something other.

I struggle though with the bulk of McLaren’s answer to this question. I think that here McLaren has made a move away from what the scriptures teach concerning the gospel. First, I think McLaren contradicts himself. He says that Romans is not a linear text, yet he treats it as such with seven linear moves. He says Paul is not moving from A to Z, yet this is exactly how he treats Romans in his exposition of it. Why? Because Paul actually did think through how he wanted to describe the core beliefs of the Christ following community.

Second, while I appreciate the idea of reading Paul through the gospels this seems to be poor exegesis. We should not reading anything through anything else. We ought to read texts alongside one another. Why do we always have a need to find a “controlling” text? Is it not possible to set these texts next to one another and allow them to inform us? This is especially important due to the reality that the epistles were written prior to the gospels. I understand that there was an oral tradition regarding the gospel narratives that informed Paul’s writing. However, it also seems that Paul had direct influence on Matthew (who most likely wrote from Antioch, Paul’s home church), Mark (who probably traveled with Paul), and Luke (who definitely traveled with Paul). So, it makes sense to all these text to inform one another and not to give primacy to any one of them. If we follow this method we will see that the gospel is not ONLY concerned with penal substitutionary atonement but it is also concerned with victory, liberation, and re-creation.

Finally, to set aside issues of propitiation and to never once deal with Christ’s death and resurrection is deeply problematic. Anyone genuine reading of the gospels points to the cruci-centric nature of the ministry of Jesus. The epistles all point to the crucifixion and the resurrection as the central tenets of the faith.

I think, sadly, McLaren has made a move that authentic followers of Christ cannot make. In his gospel paradigm there is no means by which people are reconciled to their creator and to his creation. He calls for peace, liberation, and re-creation but there is no means by which that is achieved. It is here that we must part ways.

Mar 17, 2010 ∞

Who’s the long haired freak? or The Jesus Question

This is the fourth post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Jesus Question: Who is Jesus and why is he important?

In this the fourth question, the Jesus question, McLaren seeks to find an authentic representation of who Jesus is in the Scriptures. The issue is particularly stated:

Among those who become more self-aware about the danger of distortion, and understandable fear arises: if all of us (not just “all of them”) are tempted to make Jesus in our own image, then we should be extremely cautious about compromising, letting Jesus be reimaged according to contemporary tastes…By holding a presumptive hostitlity to new views of Jesus, which may indeed reflect contemporary biases, we may unwittingly preserve old views of Jesus, which also reflect dangerous and compromising biases — just biases of the past rather than the present (121–122, italics original).

The old way of understanding Jesus that McLaren spars with is once again founded in his Greco-Roman construct. The Jesus of the Gospels is replaced by the Jesus of Revelation: the angry, sword wielding, Caesar look-a-like Jesus. While Jesus failed the first time around, there is no fear, he will come back and bring the sword and lead a great militaristic victory. This is the Jesus imaged after Caesar in all his glory and splendor. Finally, Pax Christus will match up with Pax Romana.

If this is not Jesus then who is he? McLaren argues that Jesus is the bringer of a new Genesis, a new Exodus, and a new kingdom come. His arguments are derived by comparing the gospel texts to the narratives found in Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah. In these places he finds parallels between Jesus and Moses and the peaceable kingdom. The difference is that in Jesus we have a greater depth of the realization of creation, liberation, and peace. This most clearly evidenced in the dream of the peaceable kingdom found in the prophets. In Jesus, we no longer have a dream, but a kingdom actually inaugurated.

McLaren summarizes what Jesus does in this way:

…Jesus…did not come merely to “save souls from hell.” No he came to launch a new Genesis, to lead a new Exodus, and to announce, embody, and inaugurate a new kingdom as the Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6). Seen in this light, Jesus and his message have everything to do with poverty, slavery, and a “social agenda.” (135)

Reflections

This was one of the most challenging sections of McLaren’s book for me. I think it is because I find myself so often shrinking Jesus into a box that keeps him purely in the business of saving souls. I see him only as the sacrificial lamb whose blood I paint on my door frame so that I am passed over on the day of judgment. My life is so much easier that way. This approach protects me from “losing my life to save it.” This approach to Jesus makes it easy to “win” debates about spiritual things. This approach relegates Jesus to gymna-sanct-a-toriums and the first day of the week. If Jesus is more than a sacrifice for me, if he is the victor, the liberator, the one who brings about my re-creation, then a relationship with Jesus will be painful, real, passionate, beautiful, and transformative.

That being said I have a very real concern about the picture that McLaren paints. It is due to the fact that he does not include any discussion regarding the atonement. He says that he painting a picture of Jesus outside the lines of the six-line diagram and that he seeking to bring “Christ and him crucified” to the fore. However, he does not interact with the cross of Christ. What we have is a focus on the other aspects of Jesus’s work.

In a text that is painting a new vision of Christianity it is sloppy, at best, to ignore the crucifixion and it’s atoning work. Is it possible that McLaren simply accepts Steve Chalke’s representation of the atonement? Is he simply affirming liberation theology? I hope not. He says in the quote above that Jesus did not “merely” save souls. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is “balancing the scales”, so to speak. However, this is very dangerous turf upon which to walk. I hope in future texts that he will clarify his position on Christ’s work on the cross.

Mar 15, 2010 ∞

Who’s the Big Guy Upstairs? or The God Question

This is the third post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The God question: Is God violent?

God is a tribalistic, violent, cosmic child abuser. Do you believe that? This is the question that McLaren undertakes in the third part of A New Kind of Christianity. He says that as you read the Bible we bump into God doing or at least sanctioning genocide and violence. This seems to contradict the picture that we find in the life and person of Jesus. This leads to the natural question, “how can this be?”

Beginning with this question, McLaren, begins to apply to theological questions his understanding of the overarching storyline of the Bible and his understanding of authority (how the Bible should be read). In theological terms (and here’s your ten cent word for the day) we see his prolegomena being applied. This is where the rubber meets the road (add another cliche of your choice here). We do not have two perspectives fleshed out in this section of the text, what we have is an argument that is developed for an evolutionary perspective on the revelation of God.

McLaren uses a math text book as his analogy and it makes sense to quote it at length here.

“Consider the Bible a collection of math textbooks. There’s a first-grade text, a second-grade text, and so son, all the way up to high-school texts that deal with geometry, algebra, trigonometry, maybe even calculus. Imagine opening the second-grade text and reading this sentence about subtraction: “You cannot subtract a larger number from a smaller number.” Then you open a sixth-grade text and see a chapter entitled “Negative Numbers.” The first sentence reads: “This chapter will teach you how to subtract larger numbers from small numbers.” How do we reconcile the statements? Were the authors of the second-grade text lying? Or were the authors of the sixth-grade text relativists, doubting the absolute truth of an earlier text? (104)“

The point of the analogy is that educational experts have determined that a second-grader is not cognitively able to understand the concept of negative numbers yet. Therefore, the second-grade text is teaching them where they are and preparing them for further teaching in the future. McLaren argues that this is how God has theologically trained the human race.

He argues that in the Bible what we have are developing or maturing or evolving perspectives of who God is. God is then constantly taking us through a process of understanding more of who he is based on where we are in our understanding of him. Therefore we as people are constantly on a trajectory of change and growth and never coming to the place where we have arrived. He says, “what if, in order to understand the character of God that lies behind, beneath, above, and within the agency of God, we must similarly pass through some stages in which our understanding is imbalanced and incomplete? (105)”

How does this answer the question? Like this:

“In light of the unfolding understanding of biblical revelation, when we ask why God appears so violent in some passages of the Bible, we can suggest this hypothesis: if the human beings who produced those passages were violent in their own development, they would naturally see God through the lens of their experience. The fact that those disturbing descriptions are found in the Bible doesn’t mean that we are stuck with them, any more than we are stuck with ‘You cannot subtract a larger number from a smaller number’ just because that statement still exists in our second-grade textbook. Remember the Bible is not a constitution. It is like the library of math texts that shows the history of the development of mathematical reasoning among human beings.(106)”

McLaren goes on to argue that this causes us to necessarily evolve in our understanding of God. This means that we must constantly be “trading up” in our perspective of who God is. This brings clarity to the “absolute refusal of among the Jewish people to tolerate idols: idols freeze one’s understanding of God in stone, as it were. (111)” As better understandings of God develop around us we must “trade-up” and embrace the clearer and better understanding of God. Ultimately what we are going to find is that for Christians Jesus is the highest and best revelation of God.

Reflections

There are some things that I find helpful in this section of McLaren’s quest. I am thankful that he is seeking to deal with head-on an issue that is often set aside. I think that his approach here is creative and provides us with some things to consider. I also appreciate how he points to Christ as the high point. Just yesterday, my bride and I, were talking about people who place the Bible as their object of worship. McLaren’s positioning of Christ as the highest form of revelation is a helpful guard against this. I also appreciate the nuances perspective that is taken here. He does not make the easy jump to “God is evolving” but argues for development in human understanding of God.

I do have a concern though. While there are small things that I could nit-pick the greater issue for me is one of authority. With the position that McLaren is positing here we must ask who determines the better or more evolved view of who God is? Where do we get this information? Clearly (from McLaren’s perspective) we cannot find this information in the Bible for it is merely a record of human thought and development. I think that he would say we find this through conversation with one another and the “other”. However, I think that this is problematic. Should we say that Islam has a better understanding of God because it came later? And then that should be replaced by Mormonsim because it came after that? Where does this end?

If we want to say that Jesus is the climax, the best revelation of God, then all we have is the Bible. The Bible cannot simply be a collection of human thought development. It has to be something more. This means that we cannot just discard the “violent God” passages and chalk it up to those less evolved people back then. This is arrogance of the highest order. What do we do with 1 Corinthians 10 if this is the case?

I do not agree that we have evolving perspectives of God in the Bible. I think that we have God revealing himself progressively and acting in ways that he chooses. I am not comfortable with the violence that God does in the Bible. I do know that God acts justly and purposefully. I also know that with the coming of Jesus and his death and resurrection there was a radical change. The rest of it requires me to live with mystery and tension.

That’s OK. I am good with mystery.

Mar 15, 2010 ∞

Baseball. Redemption, and a Hospital Room (re-post from May 29,2009)

Today I have a little procedure to deal with some scar tissue in my esophagus. It is no big deal. Last summer though our family dealt with a big deal medically. I won’t be writing a new post today but I thought that this was a timely one to re-post (it just so happens that the first Tigers telecast of the season is today). This post is from May 29, 2009.

A week ago yesterday my bride received a phone call. It was one of those calls that you dread. Her dad, Dennis, was in the hospital due to a stroke. It was “minor” but for a man like Dennis and for a family like ours it is major. Dennis is an athlete (at times becoming a scratch golfer!). Dennis is the life of the party. Dennis is the picture of the entrepreneurial spirit. Dennis is the kind of man that other men want to be. This is seen in the respect that his four son-in-laws have for him and the tender love that he bestows on his four daughters.

Amy left Detroit early last Thursday morning and drove (I am sure more quickly than she cares to admit) directly to the hospital room in Evansville, IN where Dennis was beginning his recovery.

But wait, that’s not the whole backstory.

The beloved St. Louis Cardinals were about to finish their three game homestand against the hated Chicago Cubs. The Cards had won the first two games of the series and were in position to sweep and return to first place in the division. In business like fashion they dispatched the Cubs and welcomed to town their cross state rivals, the Royals for a weekend set.

Every single day there was baseball. Every single day there was time spent in a hospital room. Every single daay there was a conversation over lunch or dinner that took place between Amy and Dennis about the Cards.

You see baseball was the beginning of healing. It was normalcy brought into an abnormal situation. It was the pastoral balm that allowed father and daughter to sit and talk and be. Baseball. Not doctors. Not a golden tongued preacher. Not a good book. Baseball. It was the context. The rhythm of life that never stops. It’s six on, one off created rhythm that touches us deep.

Some say the season is too long. Some say the games are too long. Some say it’s boring. Some say it’s day in and day out grind take away from it.

I could not disagree more. It is redemptive. It is ongoing. It is always with you. It provides passion, joy, pain, sorrow, elation. Most of all, it provides time. Time for a father and daughter to be together. Time for them to get lost together and forget that they are in a hospital room. Time for them to be transported to that place they both love. That place where the buzz of the crowd, the warmth of the sun, and smell of the hot dog fill you.

Baseball.

Redemption.

A Hospital Room.

Beautiful.

Mar 12, 2010 ∞

Who’s the Boss? or The Authority Question

[caption id=“attachment_771” align=“alignleft” width=“300” caption=“Well that’s not quite how it works…”]

[/caption]

This is the second post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

The Authority Question: How should the Bible be understood?

As with the narrative question, McLaren, sets up two opposing views of how to understand the Bible. The first is what he calls the “Constitutional View (78).” He sees this view as the cause for three critical problems he highlights regarding our use and understanding of the Bible:

1. The scientific mess (68)
2. The ethical mess (68)
3. The peace mess (69)

We come out on the “wrong side” of these issues over and over again because we have missed the very nature of the Bible. McLaren argues his case by using the issue of slavery and comparing how Christians in the South used the Bible to defend slavery. As a result, “We must find new approaches to our sacred texts, approaches that sanely, critically, and fairly engage with honest scientific inquiry, approaches that help us derive constructive and relevant guidance in dealing with pressing personal and social problems, and approaches that lead us in the sweet pathway of peacemaking rather than the broad, deep rut of mutually assured destruction (70).”

McLaren goes on to argue that as a result of our understanding the Bible in a constitutional matter we read it like lawyers in a courtroom. In so doing we create a case for a particular and then look to find how to support our case by the precedents found in the text. This approach, it is argued, creates tensions in the text that have to be reconciled and in so doing damage is done to the Bible. The greatest problem is that unlike constitutions which can be amended, the Bible is the word of God and therefore cannot be.

This is in opposition to the nature of the Bible that McLaren proposes, that of a library of culture and community. This means that it is a “carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus (81).”

The Bible then should be expected to have tension and even contradictions. Why? Because it is a library with different works of literature that are coming from different perspectives. This is what we expect in any library and the biblical library is no different. Internal discrepancies within a constitution are great problems but they are signs of “vitality and vigor in the literature of a culture (82).”

How does then apply out to understanding the issue of authority? If the Bible is not full of propositional truth, then how does revelation work? It works, says McLaren, through conversation. The basis for his argument comes from the book of Job. He sees in Job proof that, “revelation occurs not inthe words and statements of individuals, but in the conversation among individuals and God, we might say (italics original, 89–90).” How does he get here? He does so by seeing that Job’s companions are chastised by God even though they were quoting from the Bible in their responses to Job. Job is not chastised and yet he was the one questioning God. The problem continues for McLaren because in Job we have Satan speaking and God speaking and these other characters. Are their words inspired by God? Certainly not, McLaren says. These words are used by God to draw us into conversation with the text to leave us in a place of wonder.

He contrasts his view with conservatives who seek to “put us ‘under’ Scripture (96).” He also contrasts his view with liberals who seek to “put us ‘over’ Scripture (96).” McLaren’s desire is to “put us ‘in’ Scripture (96).”

Reflections

I really appreciate the call that McLaren makes in regard to how we understand the Bible. I have seen this constitutional view in action and it is disheartening. I also appreciate how he desires us to come to the Bible with awe and wonder. This is good, nay, very good. I really like how he closes this section out, “I hope this approach can help us enter and abide in the presence, love, and reverence of the living God all the days of our lives and in God’s mission as humble, wholehearted servants day by day and moment by moment (97).” Any approach to the Bible that short circuits this response is flawed and yet often times the lack of this response is not due to our approach but to our hearts.

I think that where I struggle with McLaren’s approach is that, in my opinion, he does not give the Scriptures their due. It seems that he has made them less than what they are. To relegate them as a mere conversation partner in our spirituality pushes them to the periphery, by definition. Looking at Job it seems that revelation comes through God’s self-disclosure, not as result of conversation. The Scriptures are a special revelation of the transcendant God to his creation and in so doing help us experience his immanence. It is here where our sense of awe is derived, the immanence of the transcendant God before us in the Bible.

When we read the Bible we interact with God. We must ask questions and seek him in the midst of this. We must engage fully. Dare I say even converse? Yes. In so doing though we must acknowledge that this interaction is more along the lines of a student conversing with a professor as opposed to a peer. The Bible is not an ongoing conversation. It is not changing. When the authors wrote they wrote with purpose. They had an intended meaning. We engage with the Bible and ask questions to understand this meaning, then we must understand how it applies to our world now. This process does not change the Bible. It changes us.

Mar 11, 2010 ∞

What’s the Story Jack? or The Narrative Question

This is the first of ten posts on Brian McLaren’s, “A New Kind of Christianity”. As we begin this little quest of ours I want you to know that I am not commenting on the introductory chapters and just diving into the “red meat”, so to speak. Also, I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.

Without further ado…

The Narrative Question: What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?

For us to make sense of any book we must come to some conclusion about what is its main idea. We do this so that we can make interpretive decisions regarding a text’s finer details. To answer this question McLaren contrasts two ways of understanding the overarching storyline. The first way is that of the “Six Line Diagram”:

[caption id=“attachment_762” align=“aligncenter” width=“410” caption=“Six Line Diagram (34)”]

[/caption]

This diagram, states McLaren, is the dominant understanding of the Bible from the “fifth or sixth century” (33). He argues that this storyline is brought about through isogesis by forcing upon the biblical texts “the Greco-Roman narrative” (37). What exactly does this mean? Succinctly, it is the application of Platonic thought to the Bible and specifically taking the cave illusion and adding biblical themes. He goes on to argue that the god that is represented by this story shall be called, “Theos” who “loves spirit, state, and being and hates matter, story, and becoming, since, once again, the latter involve change, and the only way to change or move from perfection is downward into decay. (42)” Theos is the christianized version of Zeus.

In this context McLaren argues against the concept of “the Fall”. This is because the term is never used in the Bible and is inherently “un-Jewish (en 15).” Theos stands at the ready to destroy because people are changing and becoming and imperfect. Salvation then is the return to perfection and to stasis. Those who are not saved are eternally punished because Theos will not destroy the Spirit.

To summarize, the good news in the six line diagram is, “Theos, plus perfected souls of the redeemed in heaven, plus everyone else suffering the absolute, ‘perfect’ torment of eternal, unquenchable, pure, and unchanging hate from Theos, getting what they deserve for being part of the detestable fallen universe. (44)”

McLaren provides a counter-story. He argues for developing the story by reading “forwards through Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets to Jesus. (46)” For the sake of his text he focused on Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah to grasp the story arch of the Bible which can be understood in three dimensions. The first is found in Genesis. Genesis sets the table for the rest. This first dimension is “Creation and Restoration”. Here, McLaren argues that what we see in the Creation narrative is the Jewish concept of “goodness” as opposed to the Platonic “perfection” (47). Goodness, it is argued, is a relative term as opposed to the absolutism of perfection. It is from this platform that McLaren argues against the ontological fall (i.e. original sin).

To that end he states that what is seen in Genesis 3 is a “coming of age story” (49). In this story Elohim gives his daughter greater and greater freedom and she responds with greater and greater foolishness. His response is not judgment but a patient lovingkindness (this is seen in the fact that Adam and Eve do not actually die on the day they eat the fruit contra God’s own words earlier in Genesis 3).

The movement throughout the story of Genesis is from garden to city. This could be understood as “development” or ascending in progress. However, it is an ironic ascent “because with each gain, humans also descend into loss. They descend (or fall — there’s nothing wrong with the word itself, just the unrecognized baggage that may come with it) from the primal innocence of being naked without shame in one another’s presence.”

It is in the story of Abraham that we see this reversed. It is ultimately experienced through the life of Joseph and the reconciliation that he makes with his brothers.

The second narrative dimension is the Exodus’ liberation and formation. The people are liberated from their city-dwelling bondage and returned to the primal wilderness where they are formed. This narrative “situates us in humanity’s oppressive, resistant world in which God is active as liberator — freeing us from external and internal oppression forming us as the people of God. (58)” This narrative ends in progress.

The third narrative is exemplified in the prophet Isaiah. It is the narrative of “the sacred dream of the peaceable kingdom.(59)” The dream becomes ever more encompassing as time goes by and moves from a physical concept to that of the “Day of the Lord”. Here we experience the liberation and reconciliation and the return to the good. This narrative, McLaren argues, free us from a deterministic future and draw us into a realization that, “history is unscripted, unrehearsed reality, happening now — really happening. (63)”

Reflections

So what do we do with all this? I am thankful for McLaren’s gracious and creative approach to the storyline of the Bible. I appreciate that he desires to moves us away from a purely propositional reading of the Bible. This approach is the product of modernist epistemology (whether we want to admit it or not, it’s true). He also does a nice job of helping to move us from a foundationalism that is unhelpful when one considers the depth and interconnectedness of the biblical narrative. I also think that McLaren has hit on significant themes: Creator, Reconciler, and Liberator. I am grateful for his deconstruction of the modern isogesis.

I do have some concerns. Firstly, I am concerned with the move away from an ontological fall. I agree with McLaren that the six line diagram is overly simplistic, however, I think that we can rightly understand Genesis 3 as an ontological fall if we choose to take a nuanced view. What I mean is this: while we as people on this side of Genesis 3 are indeed born into sin we are also born as image bearers of God. This means that while we are radically corrupted we also bear the marks of our creator. I think that McLaren falls prey to his own critique here in that while he seeks to move away from a Platonic reading he simply substitutes it with the Aristotelian. To argue away the ontological fall one must deal with Romans 1–6 and he does not.

Secondly, I think that he needs to do more with the issues of justice. While Theos is first-rate tool, McLaren’s Elohim is a spineless parent who chooses not to discipline his children. The pastor to the Hebrews in his sermon says, “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons (Heb 12:7–8). ” It is notable that McLaren chooses not to discuss the slaying of animals on behalf of Adam and Eve and that in so doing God made a way to atone for their sin.

Finally, I am concerned about the fact that McLaren seems to be using the fundamentalist Christian movement as his foil and lumps all of Christianity from the “5th or 6th century” on into that same category. I would argue that Edwards, Calvin, and the like had much more nuanced understandings of the story line of the Bible than what is presented in the six line diagram. I would also argue that what we find in the writings of those doing work in the field of social identity theory provide for us this nuanced vision that we need (for a great example see Dr. J. Brian Tucker’s work).

Mar 10, 2010 ∞

Leave your church? Yeah, he really said it.

OK, so before I get into A New Kind of Christianity, I had to write about this. Yesterday I ran across this story (this is a summary and includes some audio) about Glenn Beck thanks to Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed. In a nutshell he is arguing that churches which practice “social” or “economic” justice are covers for communism and nazism. I know, I could not believe it either. I am hoping that there is more to this. I have only the little clip on the link above. I want to believe the best in Mr. Beck, however, it is a bit disheartening when people like him choose to set aside the Bible for their political gains.

Jesus cared deeply for the poor, the dispossessed, and the broken. The scriptures are very clear about the role of justice and how it so closely connects to the heart of God. Let us look at but one verse, Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”

Simple question, “what does God require of us”? Answer: DO JUSTICE. Friends, the heart of God is just and he is seeking to bring about justice. This is why Jesus himself had to die on the cross, so that justice could be done. Read the Psalms and you will find that justice is a key theme. Read the gospels and you will find that justice is a key theme. Justice is a core principle in the economy of God.

We tack on terms like “social” or “economic” and then try to run away from our responsibility. No. Justice is required of us. Finally, I would recommend reading Leviticus 25 and then tell me that God does not care about justice. Justice is not a cover for communism or nazism. Justice is the response of a grateful people who have been transformed by a resurrected savior.

Mar 9, 2010 ∞

A New Kind of Christianity

I have been reading Brian McLaren’s newest book, A New Kind of Christianity. It has totally engaged me. My mind is wrestling through the challenges that he has laid out. I am about half way through the text and I am very frustrated that he end-noted instead of foot-noted, I have a callous now from marking my place at the end-notes (OK not really, but you get my point). I am going to write ten more posts on the book and in each one I am going to interact with the question that McLaren proposes.

Here’s your chance to look into the future:

• What is the overarching story line of the Bible?
• How should the Bible be understood?
• Is God violent?
• Who is Jesus and why is he important?
• What is the gospel?
• What do we do about the church?
• Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?
• Can we find a better way of viewing the future?
• How should the followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
• How can we translate our quest into action?

These will be my next ten posts. I hope that you will interact in the comments and that we can have a good and lively conversation about what McLaren is bringing to the table.

Mar 5, 2010 ∞

YOUR preacher is DEAD.

Holograph (left), Tony Morgan (right)

Is the title a little extreme? Probably. But, that’s the point. Yesterday Tony Morgan sported some new technology on his website. It’s the same kind of technology that we saw on CNN during the presidential coverage, that’s right, holograms. Tony believes that this technology will be coming down in price such that it will become a regular in churches in the next year.

I think that this is a sad commentary on the state of discipleship in the church today. We already have pastors of “multi-site” churches preaching via video screen because they are unwilling or incapable of training others up. This takes it to the next level. I can see the sales pitch coming now, “Imagine having Rob Bell or John Piper preaching at your church EVERY Sunday for the low, low price of…”

I am an early adopter of technology. I am also a believer in the necessary availability of the preacher to connect with his people. One of my mentors said, “The most important part of the sermon is the slow walk after the service out of the sanctuary.” Why? It is because in those few moments you are able to engage with the people God has entrusted you with. You are able to field questions, talk more deeply, or just hear an encouraging word. Let’s see a holograph do that!

It seems to me with this technology, as with many others, the question is not “can we” but “should we.” What say you? Should you replace your preached with a holograph?