λέων καὶ ἀρνίον

Logos 4

2009-11-02T04:00:00.000-08:00

Drumroll please…

Logos 4 has arrived!

Today after much waiting Logos 4 goes live. There are some great new features you will want to check out. First and foremost the whole look of Logos has been redesigned. Most notably the fonts have been hugely improved. The difference between v3 and v4 is night and day in terms of readability. Logos 4 now has opentype support of old style numerals, small caps and even ligatures. If that doesn’t make you excited I don’t know what will. These improvements translate tangibly into a superior reading experience in v4.

As you work your layouts are snapshoted which makes saving layouts a cinch.

I rarely ever used layouts in v3, but now I find myself using them regularly thanks to this vast improvement. You can also reorganize a layout into two columns or three vertical just with the click of a button. There are a number of subtle layout improvements you may not notice first starting. Like resources will open up in the same pane. So for example if you have Louw Nida open and then open up BDAG it will automatically open in the same pane as Louw Nida. Or if you want to drag it from your library a helpful blue snap hint allows you to precisely place your books.

There are a number of cool new ways to visualize the Biblical text. The word tree visualization shown here is very impressive.

Syntax searching underwent a huge visual overhaul. Now there are a number of presents to help get you started searching.

The new reading plan feature is amazing! You can set up a reading plan for any book in your library and the days reading is helpfully marked off for you.

Don’t like having the reading plan marked? Open up the visual filter control button and turn it off. You can also turn on and off your markups, or highlighting from notes.

If you’re working on two computers notes, reading plans, layouts, just about everything is sync’d between your two machines. This saves so many headaches it isn’t even funny!

One of my favorite new features is the ability to save passage guide, exegetical guides, and word studies. Run a passage guide on Romans 1.1 – 17 and type in a title and some notes. Then later on down the road run a passage guide on Roman 1 and the guide will alert you to the presence of the guide you ran on Romans 1.1 – 17. This is perhaps my favorite feature of all of the new features! It will be an incredible time saver over the years!

The list of all the new features and improvements could go on and on. Some things didn’t make this release. Right now there is no sentence diagramming feature, this is scheduled for a major overhaul from what I understand. And a number of other features didn’t make the initial release but will be rolled out. Right now notes can’t be imported from v.3, but Bob and the crew have that as a top priority following the release of Logos 4.

Mutemath, John, and Empire

2009-07-07T15:13:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure if anyone remember the old band Earthsuit, they broke up and some of the members reformed into my favorite band now called Mutemath. Mutemath is getting ready to release their 2nd full album. To help get things started they had a VIP listening party tour which started in Seattle last night. My friend Mike was kind enough to invite me along to the listening party, which was the first in the country. I got to hear the new album Armistice in its entirety. Let me tell you Mutemath fans, its definitely Mutemath, but completely new and fresh. You're in for a treat. Track 3, Clipping was almost unanimously the group's favorite. The end track Burden was another standout. It had great movement and pacing throughout the song. There are some great opportunities in the song for a group drum solo. If anyone has been to a live show you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm really looking forward to the album.

I'm hoping to blog some stuff on the Gospel of John here soon. I'd love some reading recommendation for my next book on the Gospel of John. Currently I'm finishing up Warren Carter's John and Empire and it's thought provoking. The good folks at T & T Clark were kind enough to send a review copy along. I'll be sending a review into the Princeton Theological Journal and eventually I'll try to do a chapter by chapter review here. It's a fantastic read. I'm finding I'm moving slower through it than anticipated because there is so much fantastic material to soak up.

Seminary And Scholarship

2009-07-05T20:56:00.000-07:00

I hate applying for scholarships. How many times can you write the same 1,000 word essay? And yet, somehow, each scholarship seems to demand a new, fresh essay. Simply repurposing an already written essay never works, at least not without twice as much effort as a fresh essay would require. You would think that there are only so many ways to ask the same question, and yet every scholarship committee seems to find their own unique twist. Then there’s the word limit. “In one thousand words sum up the entire Christian faith being sure to touch on all major aspects of Christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, epistemology, history, exegesis, worship, Luther, Calvin, Augustine, and Barth. Make sure to clearly articulate your call while especially highlighting how you plan to achieve ecumenical unity, and world peace.”

The other problem is the specificity of most of the scholarships out there for Seminary. Unless you are a Pilipino male, who tragically lost your right knee cap in an animal stampede, currently living in Loving County Texas, and planning on serving the Presbyterian Church in Alaska for 15 years, there really aren’t many scholarships you can even apply for, let along win.

Luckily for you, once you enter seminary, you’ll find that 90 percent of the scholarships you don’t even qualify for and the other 10 percent that you do qualify for require you to write one of those dreaded essays mentioned above. Luckily the folks at Logos Bible software have been kind enough to start a scholarship for Seminarians easy to apply for. It took me no longer than 15 minutes.

Seminary Scholarship

John 8.33 Freedom and Slavery

2009-05-29T15:22:00.000-07:00

Most commentators agree that in John 8.33 the Jews (Ἰουδαίους) are talking about spiritual freedom/slavery and not political freedom/slavery when they say, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone.” Both Barrett and Keener dismiss the idea that the Jews are talking about political subjugation as absurd.[1] Brown thinks the Jews have misunderstood Jesus’ words taking them in a political sense rather than in the spiritual sense.[2] Brown doesn’t explain how it is the Jews could makes what seems like a blatantly false claim even in their misunderstanding.

Is the political understanding that absurd? Warren Carter in his excellent book John and Empire argues that such a reading is in fact possible. Drawing upon social-scientific research Carter explores imperial negotiation in terms of social identity construction. In the ancient world antiquity was king. Groups turned to the past as a way of constructing identity. Remembering the past was always selective, constructing the past in life giving ways for the present. “This reconstructive process… comprises ‘a form of vital self-presentation and prideful self-assertion’ vis-à-vis other groups and powers with other interests who shape a different present.[3]

This look to the past provides the basis for Carter’s short investigation. Carter looks at two ways of remembering Abraham. The first way emphasizes Abrahams obedience to God and Torah and the covenant identity that separated the Jewish people from the nations. Carter points to Sirach, Jubilees, and the Apocalypse of Abraham as examples of this first type of remembering.[4] Sirach for example says:

Abraham was the great father of a multitude of nations,

and no one has been found like him in glory.

He kept the law of the Most High,

and entered into a covenant with him;

he certified the covenant in his flesh,

and when he was tested he proved faithful.

The emphasis is placed on Abraham’s observance of the Law even before the time of Moses and the giving of the law.

The second way of remembering Abraham focuses on Abraham as a means of integrating with Hellenistic and Roman culture. Carter points to 3 examples of this way of remembering: Artapanus, Philo, and Josephus. Artapanus taught the Egyptians to study the stars.[5] Philo remembers Abraham as the foreigner who left astrology and polytheism to seek truth and the one God. Abraham lives not just according to Torah, which is an image of the law of nature, but also according to the higher law of nature in good Stoic fashion. For Josephus, Abraham is a ideal statesmen, a platonic philosopher-king. He “engages in natural theology to be a monotheist.”[6] He exports culture to other people teaching the Egyptians arithmetic and astronomy. Abraham opposes the Sodomites because they hate foreigners, while he welcomes foreigners.[7]

With these two ways of remembering the past, Carter asks whether the Jews are associating themselves with the Abraham who is father of the Jewish nation, responsible for customs like circumcision which marked Jew out from Gentile? Or do the Jews associate themselves with the Abraham who is an exporter of culture, open to participation in Gentile culture?[8] Carters conclusion is that the Jews take the second route finding in this tradition:

a means of bridging Jewish and non-Jewish worlds that empowers their engagement with and significant accommodation to the imperial present. That is, they are descendants of Abraham, who was open to and an active participant in the Gentile world. They construct Abraham in their own image. Though under Roman rule, they are essentially free in most ways from Roman restraints but able to observe Jewish distinctive without interfering with significant degrees of societal interaction.[9]

While Carters’ argument is hardly comprehensive it at least suggests that the “spiritualized” understanding favored by most commentators might not be as obvious as most commentators have thought.

[1] Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John; An Introduction With Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (New York,: Macmillan, 1962). Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003).

[2] Brown, The Gospel According to John (Garden City, N.Y.,: Doubleday, 1966).

[3] Alcock, Susan as quoted in Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 94.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 103.

[6] Ibid., 104.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 105.

The Prophet-King?

2009-05-18T13:16:00.000-07:00

Anyone seen a reasonably priced copy of Wayne Meek's The Prophet-King? I've yet to see a used copy, let alone a reasonable priced copy. Any leads would be helpful.

Friendship and Philippians

2009-05-17T14:42:00.000-07:00

Been a while since I've last blogged. School has kept me more than busy this year, but now with summer rolling around it time to start blogging again. I took a class on Philippians and Philemon in the short term with the very fine Ross Wagner. For our final project we broke into group and researched an aspect of Philippians or Philemon and created an internal class wiki. The group I was working with dove into ancient concepts of friendship. Surprising there is a rather large amount of literature relating to Philippians and friendship. Since the Wikis aren't available for anyone outside of the class blackboard site, I've decided to take the bibliography my group created and post it here.

Bibliography: Philippians and Friendship

Aristotle and Terence Irwin, Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Pub. Co., 1985.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius and William Armistead Falconer, Cicero. De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Divinatione. The Loeb classical library. London, New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1923.
Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. "Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1:8 on the Logic of God's χάρις and Its Human Response." Harvard Theological Review 101,01 (2008): 15-44.
Epicurus. "On Friendship," Pages xxvi, 627 p. in The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers; The Complete Extant Writings of Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius [and] Marcus Aurelius. Edited by Whitney Jennings Oates, Cyril Bailey, P. E. Matheson, H. A. J. Munro, and George Long. New York,: Random House, 1940.
Fee, G. D. "To What End Exegesis? Reflections on Exegesis and Spirituality in Philippians 4:10-20." Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 75-88.
Fitzgerald, John T. "Christian friendship: John, Paul, and the Philippians." Interpretation 61,3 (2007): 284-296.
Fitzgerald, John T., Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 82. Leiden ; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.
Fitzgerald, John T., Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Resources for biblical study no 34. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997.
Fitzgerald, John T. "Paul and Friendship," Pages 319 - 343 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World : A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. 2003.
Gill, Christopher, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford, Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Harrison, James R., Paul's Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Herman, Gabriel, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Jaquette, J. L. "A Not-so-Noble Death : Figured Speech, Friendship and Suicide in Philippians 1:21-26." Neotestamentica 28,1 (1994): 177-192.
Johnson, L. T. "Making Connections : The Material Expression of Friendship in the New Testament." Interpretation 58,2 (2004): 158(171).
Joubert, Stephan, Paul as Benefactor : Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul's Collection. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe 124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
Konstan, David, Friendship in the Classical World. Key themes in ancient history. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Konstan, David. "Patrons and Friends." Classical Philology 90,4 (1995): 328-342.
Lyons, George and William H. Malas, Jr. "Paul and his Friends Within the Greco-Roman Context." Wesleyan Theological Journal 42,1 (2007): 50.
Malherbe, Abraham J., David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks, Greeks, Romans, and Christians : essays in honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Marchal, J. A., Hierarchy, Unity, and Imitation : A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis of Power Dynamics in Paul's Letter to the Philippians. 2006.
Marchal, Joseph A. "With Friends Like These...: A Feminist Rhetorical Reconsideration of Scholarship and the Letter to the Philippians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29,1 (2006): 77.
Marrow, Stanley B. "Parrhasia and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44,3 (1982): 431-446.
Meyer, Susan Sauvé, Ancient Ethics: A Critical Introduction. London ; New York: Routledge, 2007.
Millett, Paul "Patronage and its Avoidance in Classical Athens " Page 255 p. in Patronage in Ancient Society. Edited by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. London ; New York: Routledge, 1989.
Mott, S. C. "The Power of Giving and Recieving," Page 377 p. in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. Edited by Merrill Chapin Tenney and Gerald F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
O'Brien, P. T. "The Fellowship Themes in Philippians." Reformed Theological Review 37 (1978): 9 - 18.
Peterman, Gerald W., Paul's Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift-Exchange and Christian Giving. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Peterman, Gerald W. ""Thankless thanks": the Epistolary Social Convention in Philippians 4:10-20." Tyndale Bulletin 42,2 (1991): 261-270.
Plato, Benjamin Jowett, and Irwin Edman. "Lysis, Or Friendship," Pages xlvii, 555 p. in The Works of Plato. New York,: Simon and Schuster, 1928.
Plutarch, Plutarch's Moralia. The Loeb classical library. London New York: William Heinemann G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1927.
Reumann, J. H. P. "Philippians and the Culture of Friendship." Trinity Seminary Review 19,2 (1997): 69(83).
Reumann, John. "Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and to Earliest Christianity." New Testament Studies 39,03 (1993): 438-457.
Saller, Richard. "Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome," Page 255 p. in Patronage in Ancient Society. Edited by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. London ; New York: Routledge, 1989.
Sampley, J. P. "Paul and Frank Speech," Pages 293 - 318 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World : A Handbook. Edited by J. P. Sampley. 2003.
Sampley, J. Paul, Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Unnik, W. C. van. "The Semitic Backgound of ΠΑΡΡΗΣΙΑ in the NT," Pages v. <1-2> in Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Vol. 29-<30>. Leiden,: Brill, 1973.
Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, Patronage in Ancient Society. Leicester-Nottingham studies in ancient society v. 1. London ; New York: Routledge, 1989.
White, L. M. "Morality between Two Worlds: A Paradigm of Friendship in Philippians," Pages xv, 404 p. in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe, David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Witherington, Ben, Friendship and Finances in Philippi: the Letter of Paul to the Philippians. The New Testament in Context. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994.

Book Deals

2008-08-10T10:12:00.001-07:00

Christianbook.com's bargin center is worth a visit. I managed to grab Emil Schurer's 5 volume set "A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ" for $39.99 and Gerhard von Rad's “Old Testament Theology” Unabridged one volume edition for $9.99

The Evangelical Pespective of Rev 19.7-9 and More

2008-08-08T23:13:00.000-07:00

7 χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν καὶ δώσωμεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ,
ὅτι ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτὴν
8 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῇ ἵνα περιβάληται βύσσινον λαμπρὸν καθαρόν·
τὸ γὰρ βύσσινον τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν.
9 Καὶ λέγει μοι· γράψον· μακάριοι οἱ εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου τοῦ ἀρνίου κεκλημένοι. καὶ λέγει μοι· οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι ἀληθινοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσιν. (Rev 19.7-9)

As I have been working through Rodney Decker’s chapter on Revelation 19 in his fantastic “Koine Greek Reader”, I have been also working through Beale’s excellent commentary in the NIGTC series.

On Rev 19.7-9 Beale writes:

Verse 9 presents a different perspective on the wedding metaphor from vv 7–8. There the bride, the corporate church, was viewed as about to wed the Lamb, but now individual Christians are portrayed as guests at the marriage banquet. Both pictures portray the intimate communion of Christ with believers, but the first focuses on the corporate church and the second on individual members of the church. The same alteration of focus on the community as a whole and the members of the community has been seen in ch. 12 with the woman and her seed (e.g., 12:17). (Beale, G. K. 1999, The book of Revelation : A commentary on the Greek text p.945)

Here Beale manages to affirms a basic evangelical tenant, namely that of “the intimate communion of Christ with believers.” Beale though brilliantly recognizes that here in Revelation the text portrays that communion as not only personal (aka the individual), but also, and this has been a weak point of evangelicalism, the corporate. It won’t do to try and play one against the other.

Economics and Politics In Revelation

2008-08-08T23:05:00.000-07:00

As I’ve wrestled with my own sin I’ve been thinking about a theme that runs throughout the Bible which seems woefully neglected in the Church today. While the Bible does certainly call individual to personally trust in God and leave their lives of sin, the Bible also and more repeatedly call the world to leave its political and economic structures and take up God’s kingdom ways of being. As I write this I’m increasingly unhappy with having to make such a distinction between personal sin and the political and economic structures of the world. This is because that I’m increasingly convinced that the ways we organize ourselves politically and economically, and I doubt the two are separable, help determine and shape how we go about our personal lives; that which we think and do.

With the interconnection between economics, politics, and the way we live out our social existence it becomes increasingly difficult to say what determines what. Does our personal rebellion against God determine our political and economic structures? Or do our economic and political structures determine our personal rebellion? I doubt that such a chicken or egg scenario can ever be untangled because the two work hand in hand. Personal rebellion shape and structures our economics and politics, and our politics and economics shapes, structure, and reinforces our persons and their rebellion in a never ending downward spiral. Thankfully a number of very gifted scholars are exploring the political and economic dimension of the Bible.

One of the finest and gifted commentators on the economic and political dimensions of the Bible in my opinon is Richard Bauckham. Time and time again his name comes up as the must read on Revelation. His book “How to Read the Bible Politically” strikes me as one that grasps some of the finer subtleties of the political and economic dimensions of the Bible very exceptionally.

In a talk Bauckham gave on Revelation at Criswell College http://www.criswell.edu/sermon/richard-bauckham/ he captures something of the connection between politics, economics, and the way we live in the world when he says:

Revelation liberates its readers from the dominate worldview, the Roman view of the world in the first century. It exposes the idolatry that from top to bottom infuses and inspires the political, economic, and social realities in which its readers live and it calls them to uncompromising Christian witness to the true God who despite earthly appearances is sovereign over the world. So by seeing the world differently, by being given this fresh imaginative appreciation of what the world is like from God’s perspective, readers are enabled to live and die differently as followers of Jesus’ way of faithful witness to God even in the face of death. They’re empowered to live their allegiance to a different way of being in the world, to the kingdom of God, and to live in hope of the coming of God’s kingdom as the ultimate truth of this world which must prevail over everything that presently opposes God’s rule. (emphasis mine)

Here I believe that Bauckham has hit upon a central theme not only in Revelation but also through out the entire Bible which invites its hearers to reorient themselves around God rather than the world. This different way of seeing the world, as the above quote indicates, involves the totality of existence: the political, economic, and social ways of being in the world that we the Church must attend to if we are to be in any true sense Biblical. The reorientation brings with it personal reformation precisely because how we see things and how we organize ourselves politically, economically and socially are intimately interconnected.

This is important for the Church to grasp. One of the biggest critiques raised against the church here in the U.S. is that the church doesn’t look any different than the world. Divorce rates are the same, and most every day of the week some fallen church leader graces the headlines of the news. Sexual immorality runs rampant throughout the church, and opulent wealth is regularly touted as God’s desire for your life. This I suggest is because the Church here in the U.S. has so capitulated with the political and economic worldview of western liberalism that few are able to adequately distinguish between God’s kingdom and western liberalism. The two or either talked about as if they were one and the same, or they’re routinely ignored. This failure to distinguish between God’s kingdom and western liberalism (or any other alternative socio-political-economic system) has in turn affected at every level how the Church and its members exist in the world. The Church as a body must find new eyes and ears to see and hear the political and economic dimensions of Jesus call to repentance and faithfully begin to embody them if we as individuals hope to personally lead markedly different lives. If we don’t we will continue to see Christians desperately trying to swim against the stream of culture only to be swallowed up by its currents and dashed against the rocks. Let those with ears hear.

Yoder on the practice of prosboul

2008-08-03T20:36:00.001-07:00

While reading through "The Politics of Jesus" by Yoder I found this particularly interesting:

“The frequent remission of debts had a serious inconvenience, already indicated in Deuteronomy 13:7-11: it froze credit. Because of this the rabbis, even the most orthodox like Hillel and Shammai, who had become the champions of the strict application of the law of Moses, hesitated to demand the strict application of the jubilee. The closer the sabbatical year came, the more the wealthy hesitated to lend to the poor for fear of losing their capital. Hereby the economic life of the country was paralyzed. The rabbis sought out a solution to this problem. Adroit commentators of the law, they knew how to make it say the opposite of what it ordered.

It was the most congenial among them, the famous Hillel, whom Jesus sometimes quoted, the grandfather of Gamaliel (who was to be in his turn the teacher of Paul), who found a neat solution to the problem.

This solution was called the prosboul. This word probably signifies: pros boule which is Greek for ‘an action formalized before the tribunal.’ According to the treatise Gittin of the Mishnas, Hillel in this way authorized a creditor to transfer to a court the right to recover in his name a debt which the sabbatical year otherwise might have canceled.

The very existence of the proboul proves that, contrary to the
statement of some authors, there was at the time of Jesus a strong current favoring the strict application of the provision of the jubilee for the periodic remission of debts. Otherwise the institution of this procedure of prosboul would have been unnecessary.” (64-65)

Neither...

2008-07-30T09:36:00.000-07:00

Is Jesus found in cat fur!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2008/07/30/stang.holy.cat.wndu

Sheesssh!!!

Cheeto Jesus

2008-07-30T09:24:00.001-07:00

Seriously People,

You won't find Jesus in a bag of cheetos. STOP LOOKING!

If you want to find Jesus go look among the poor and the helpless, you'll find him there.

Greek Bible Karaoke

2008-07-10T13:54:00.000-07:00

Logos just announced their Greek Audio Bible.

"Listen to God’s Word like you’ve never heard it before! Bring the Greek text to life with the Greek Audio Bible, now available from Logos. Listen to John Schwandt as he reads from the Greek New Testament, and follow along as each word is highlighted as it is read—just like Karaoke!"

this looks fantastic!

http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/4206

Be sure to watch the video. You can read while you listen, and a toolbar will allow you to control the speed and passage you're listening to.

The audio recording sounds superb, much better than the Marilyn Phemister mp3's floating around the internet!

Yay!!!

Jesus and Paul on Covenantal Nomism

2008-06-11T00:19:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, the parable of the good Samaritan is best read as a parabolic critique of covenantal nomism. If this is the case, then I would argue that Paul in Romans 2.14-15, 17-25, is on the very same page as Jesus and perhaps even has this parable in mind as he writes. Arguing for direct dependence would probably be extremely difficult, so I’ll just leave dependence as a perhaps at this point.

Thiselton on Hermeneutics

2008-06-08T12:55:00.000-07:00

I’m getting ready to finish up Anthony Thiselton’s New Horizons in Hermeneutics and the final two chapters are proving to be incredibly insightful. I must confess that as I’ve been slowly ploughing through the book I’ve managed to only catch a little glimpse of what’s going on. Reading Thiselton’s book has really been my first serious venture into Hermeneutic theory. I encountered some semiotic theory as an undergraduate, read bits and pieces here and there, and I have even taught some introductory literary theory as a part of a class on interactive narratives, but this stuff is DENSE!!! It would take many more months of critically interacting with each chapter before I would feel comfortable saying that I have any sort of handle on the material. I don’t know that I would recommend starting with Thiselton’s book if you’ve never read anything on hermeneutical theory. Never-the-less as I’ve been reading I’ve caught glimpses of how the material is important to how various reading communities and myself approach and interpret the Bible. It’s really been in the final two chapters though that the lights have started to come on as Thiselton works out some of the implications of the material for pastoral theology. The final two chapters make the effort of working through the material infinitely worth it. So while I don’t’ know that I would recommend Thiselton’s book for someone who hasn’t read anything on hermeneutical theory, I don’t know that I wouldn’t recommend it either. I wish this sort of material was required reading for everyone who picks up the Bible and engages in debate on its subject matter. It would bring much more humility to the debates happening, and much more constructive interaction between different communities of interpretation. I just also wish that it wasn’t so difficult to get a handle on this material.

Perhaps Scott McKnight of Jesus Creed may have captured my thoughts best when he wrote of Thiselton’s newest volume, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, that:

Anthony Thiselton is the world's best scholar on how to read and interpret Scripture — on the art and "science" of hermeneutics. Unfortunately, his prose falls at the opposite end of the spectrum. Now a confession: along with others, I will stand in line to buy Thiselton's dense tomes so I can read them. Why? For no reasons other than his brilliant syntheses, his knack for bringing scholarly literature into focus, and his uncommon common sense that, like someone who can deftly tap rocks and bring forth diamonds, sheds deep light on dense subjects. But I never crack open Thiselton without knowing it will be hard work.

Thanks to Michael Bird over at Euangelion for originally pointing out McKnight’s review.

Divine Economy Introductory Reading List

2008-05-31T22:26:00.000-07:00

Daniel M. Bell, in the midst of an incredibly busy schedule, was kind enough to respond to an email I sent him after reading his article, “The Labor of Communion in a Capital Age”. He provided me with an introductory reading list on the shape of the ‘Divine Economy’ in the Bible. He notes that “discerning the shape of a Scriptural economy requires attending as much to wise and faithful readers of the texts as the texts themselves.” Many thanks to Dr. Bell for taking the time out of his busy schedule to provide this list:

Walter Brueggemann, passim. Especially, “The Liturgy of Abundance, The Myth of Scarcity.”

Ched Myers, passim. Especially “God Speed the Year of Jubilee” Sojourners

Meir Tamari, The Challenge of Wealth

Luke Timothy Johnson, Sharing Possessions

Sondra Wheeler, Wealth as Peril and Obligation

Elizabeth Newman, Untamed Hospitality, chapter 2

Latin American Liberationists

John Haughey, ed. The Faith That Does Justice, esp. chapter 3

Christine Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition

Amy Oden, And You Welcomed Me

Justo Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth.

John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus

Doug Meeks, God the Economist

Jesus and Justice

2008-05-19T14:19:00.000-07:00

Daniel M. Bell, whose writings are well worth reading, writes concerning the priority of confession or social action that:

“Jesus is the Justice of God.

This means there can be no division between confessing Jesus and doing justice. We cannot pick Jesus or justice; we cannot give priority to one over the other. This is the case because Jesus and justice finally are not two things, only one. Jesus is our Justice. Therefore, Christians can only do justice rightly by proclaiming Jesus and we can only
proclaim Jesus faithfully by doing justice. To proclaim the good news of Jesus is to do justice; to do justice is to proclaim Jesus. To do anything less is neither to confess Jesus nor do justice rightly.”

Absolutely brilliant!

The other Journal has the full transcript of his talk here.

Law, System, & Life-world

2008-05-18T21:40:00.000-07:00

I’ve been working on a post for the last few weeks which looks the law in the Old Testament and considers some reason why greater attention isn’t being paid to some of the Old Testament books of the law in the Church today (at pew level) . There seems to be some incredibly valuable material there in the Levitical codes which a number of scholars have unpacked especially in the area of economics. (See for example Paul William’s wonderful talk over at the regent workplace) Generally in the pews of the church thought I don’t see too many Bible studies being done on Leviticus or Numbers.

Working through the issues has been slow going so it might be a while before I have something I’m ready to put out for people to read. In the mean time I thought I would throw out a very suggestive quote from Anthony Thiselton’s large and very dense volume “New Horizons in Hermeneutics”. Thiselton, drawing on the socio-critical theory of Habermas and John Rogersons and their work on systems and life-world writes:

“The human life-world of interactive communication is seen theologically as corporately fallible and structurally flawed by self-interest. Co-Operative interaction need not always be for good, by may serve corporate self-interest. On the other hand Paul sees the law simultaneously as fulfilling two systemic functions. On the one hand, it serves as an external transcendental value-frame, providing a critique of the human life-world. In this respect “if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin” (Rom 7:7); i.e. my relation to sin would have remained at a pre-critical narrative level. “the law is holy… just and good” (Rom. 7:12); for it constitutes a necessary transcendental critical system. On the other hand, the system of law provokes conflict with the human life-world: “Apart from the law, sin lies dead… but when the commandment came, sin revived…The very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me” (Rom. 7:8-10).

In the face of this self-defeating, though necessary, system, Paul expounds the different basis and effects of the principle of grace which brings about new integration and new creation of the “one” (2 Cor 5:17). Repeatedly this is seen in terms of “freedom” from the system of the law (Rom 8:2; Gal 5:1). But this is not (as in a non-Pauline Pelagian view of freedom) a freedom to construct any kind of life-world. It is a creative transformation of the human life-world which brings about orrespondence through the Holy Sprit between the eschatological system of divine love and purpose and the corporate life-world of communicative interaction that is in the process of moving from mis-match to match. Whereas under the law, human life-world and legal system became split apart, divine grace does not destroy what the system represents, but integrates system and life-world within a new, transformed, whole. Herein lies the healing newness of the gospel as universal whole.” (p. 392-3 emphasis original)

Light & Space

2008-05-18T21:08:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, in a rare moment of Seattle sun, I went to snap some photographs of St. Ignatius Chapel on the campus of Seattle University. St. Ignatius was designed by Steven Knoll. It’s a beautiful space here are some pictures to enjoy.

Vintage Theologians

2008-04-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

I just ran into this wine Aquinas out of the Napa Valley and was lucky enough to be able to secure a case for cheap. I'm pretty sure this is the perfect wine for seminarians and theologians everywhere. Their website says of the wine that: "Aquinas Napa Valley is named for St. Thomas Aquinas {a·kwine·es}, a revolutionary scholar in the 13th century who used the laws of science to support his belief in the existence of the almighty. The same way St. Thomas intersected two, often opposing schools of thought, we hope to bring together two, separate schools of wine, Napa Valley appellation and everyday affordability."

Cheers!

Priest and King

2008-04-10T13:28:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading part 1 of Crispin Fletcher-Louis 2 part JSHJ article entitled "Jesus As The High Priestly Messiah". In it he explores some aspects of 2nd temple political aspirations and specifically how the priestly class played into those aspirations. Fletcher-Louis then lays out five available options for Jesus in relationship to these political and priestly aspirations.

1 Jesus looked to the return of the golden age of the Hasmonean rule where a new high priest would function also as a monarch. He himself would not have qualified for this position being a layman.

2 A second possibility is that Jesus believed the nation should be headed by a priest with no royal responsibilities and no king at his side. I’m not entirely sure how this is distinct from the monarchy option first presented. Fletcher-Louis doesn’t spend much time elaborating on what he means by the priest having “no royal responsibilities”, but he is explicit that this would not involve having a separate king at the Priests side. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Jesus ever entertained this possibility.

3 A 3rd option was that Jesus believed that the nation should be ruled by a king along side of, but subordinate to a high priest. If this is the case then Jesus would have looked to another to be the new royal high priest. That might be an early possibly for Jesus as he paired up with John the Baptist early on. If this was the case though, and the evidence is sparse, Jesus changed his mind after John was imprisoned or possibly even before. (Fletcher-Louis notes Mk 2.18-20 as evidence for this) This is important as Fletcher-Louis puts because it “indicates that Jesus consciously rejected one of the ‘messianic’ options open to him—diarchy” (171)

4 Jesus believed him self to be the royal messiah (Son of God), and there would be no need for a royal priesthood. Fletcher-Louis notes this is a common Christian reading of the Gospels and is thoroughly apolitical. Fletcher-Louis rejects this view because it would have made Jesus thoroughly unintelligible to the disciples, crowds, and authorities. Fletcher remarks that there “just wasn’t the widespread expectation for the royal messiah that this scenario assumes. The Sources agree that a high priesthood is to figure somewhere in the nation’s polity.” (172) Fletcher-Louis backs this statement up with a number of footnotes scattered throughout the article for those wishing to follow up.

5 The last option Fletcher-Louis presents is that Jesus believed he was “Israel’s royal messiah, and as such, he was also her true eschatological high priest.” (172) Fletcher-Louis emphasizes the point that this also wasn’t a widespread view, and there’s evidence that it was rejected by at least some. Josephus for example, is clear that torah prohibits it. Fletcher-Louis cites Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110 as text from which Jesus could have drew from for this position. The later with its mention of Melchizedek is obviously more explicit in making this connection than the former, but there is evidence of both ideas floating all over the New Testament. Earlier in the article Fletcher-Louis had discussed the relationship between the high priest and Gen 1-3. The high priest was the new Adam, wearing Adam’s lost garments, and doing what Adam failed to do in the temple-as-restored Eden. There is a host of footnotes Fletcher-Louis provides for the last 3 points and Fletcher-Louis is careful to point out that it was the office that these items applied to and not the private individuals who occupied the office at various times. All of this has tantalizing implications for the new Adam language in Paul and the high priestly language of Hebrews. Sadly Fletcher-Louis doesn’t pursue the details of the Adamic description and its priestly and royal characteristics and instead leaves them hanging choosing to rather focus on Psalm 110.

On top of Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110, I believe there is one other pertinent passage that Jesus could and did draw upon for his combination of the kingly and priestly offices. In Mark 2.23 – 28 (note the proximity to earlier mentioned Mk 2.18-20) Lk 6.1-11 Mt 12.1-14 Jesus, when questioned about his unlawful action on Sabbath responds by pointing out that David, when his companions were hungry entered into the house of god and took the consecrated bread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat. Here Jesus’ response points in much the same direction as Psalm 110 and Genesis. Jesus presents David as one who transcends the Priestly and Kingly offices. I see that as I look ahead to the 2nd part of Louis-Fletchers article he address this passage. I’ll end here and see if Louis-Fletcher adds anything to this discussion. He doesn’t seem to include it as a passage from which Jesus may have drawn from for his priestly-king self understanding, but in light of part two that conclusion may be premature. Perhaps he’ll take the passage in a different direction.

The Gay Samaritan?

2008-04-07T21:59:00.000-07:00

Stanely Hauerwas impresses me more and more as I read bit and pieces of his writing. Often I'm not sure if I'm laughing more from what seems to be an utterly ridiculous statement, or being challenged more to rethink some of my paradigms in light of Hauerwas brilliant wit. Usually it's a combination of both. Hauerwas' title for an article "Why Gays (as a Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group)" is one of those bits of his writing that at first made me roll my eyes chuckle and wonder what Dr. Hauerwas is possibly up to. The focus of the article from what I grasp is that military service is immoral and contrary to the Christian vocation to be the light of the world, and that by being excluded gays are more righteous that Christians who participate in the military. There's of course an absurdity about this claim, gays don't choose to be excluded from service and, if I understand the basic point of the article from the summaries I've read, this absurdity invites Hauerwas' punch line question, why aren't Christians then doing more to be excluded from service in the military. Shouldn't Christians by their very nature as radically radical (see my last post) be excluded from service in the military?

What struck me the most about this title was the way that it preyed upon tightly held assumptions, at least tightly held within most of the moderate wing and almost all of the right wing of the church to deliver a rhetorical kick to the teeth. The shear absurdity of suggesting that gays (as a group might mind you) might be more righteous than Christians (as a group) who support or are involved in the military is likely to bring a number from far right to their feet with lynch ropes in hand and cries of blasphemy. After thinking about this for a bit though I'm convinced that Hauerwas isn't as ingenious as I first thought when I got his punch line, rather he is merely imitating one of his teachers. Think about how absurd it must have been for Jesus to suggest that a Samaritan might be more righteous then the priest and Levite who kept torah. (Or did they?)

Radically Radical?

2008-04-07T21:22:00.000-07:00

There has been much talk in the post 9/11 world about radicalism, both Christian and Islamic radicalism. These discussion are much needed and very welcome. They have the potential to burst open some of the ways in which modernity and post-modernity have put up a destructive wall between religion and politics. In some ways these talks are new, but in other ways the reality of these dialogues aren't new. Radicalism was in a number of way a regular part of life in the 1st century world of Jerusalem. In this context and in today context Jesus can be heard calling people to be radically radical. Tom Wright has captured this idea well with his term "doubly revolutionary". Jesus was calling his follower to be revolutionaries in a revolutionary way, by turning the other cheek, and going the extra mile, not rendering evil for evil. It's within this context that Jesus' statement about giving to Caesar what it is Caesar's and giving to God what is God's should be heard. With Jesus' somewhat cryptic answer he both avoids the trap that the Pharisees and Herodians throw before him and casts the question back on them. Where does your allegiance lie and what does it look like in practice to live that out? These are pressing questions for today, what does life as a Christian look like? What's an appropriate rendering to God and Caesar in today’s political climate? Can a Christian be a part of the military and participate in an unjust war? Or is participation excluded by Jesus' call to be radically radical?

Back to blogging, Off to Princeton, and Liteary Criticism

2008-03-17T22:39:00.000-07:00

It’s been a while since I wrote my last blog. The last parts of January through March have been overwhelmingly busy months for me. On top of my normal 9-5 job I finished off my application for Princeton Seminary and worked on my syllabus for this upcoming quarter. Fantastic news though, I received an acceptance letter from Princeton just this last Saturday. So I will be attending Princeton Theological Seminary this upcoming fall! If anybody has loads of cash just lying around they might consider helping me figure out how I’m going to pay for it all by providing a nice donation to me. Don’t have loads of cash? If you know of any good scholarships please feel free to point me in their direction. In the mean time I’m about to start my spring quarter of teaching. The class I’m teaching is focused on interactive narratives and motion graphics. I plan on introducing students to some literary criticism and especially narrative criticism. Mark Goodacre over at NTGateway wrote an insightful article here on “The Passion of the Christ” that help cement in my mind the link between literary criticism and interactive media. Since I’m working on getting my notes together I’ll be posting on literary criticism in the next few weeks so long as my time doesn’t get swallowed by scholarship searches and application on top of school and work.

Literary and Narrative Criticism - Part 1

Before digging into some of the specific of narrative criticism I wanted to give a quick look at the history of literary criticism and how it has interweaved with Biblical studies. Most of what follows comes from the book I'm using to prep for class, Mark Allen Powell's "What is Narrative Criticism?" in the Guides to Biblical Scholarship Series by Fortress press. I highly recommend it. It's short and very succinct.

Literary criticism most broadly defined is the study and evaluation of a work of literature. It is seen as early as Aristotle in his book Poetics where he dealt with narrative and dramatic structure. Literary Criticism has been given increasing attention along side of, and even in place of historical and form criticism within the field of Biblical studies recently. The latter two forms of criticism Hans Frei argued in 1974, failed to take seriously the narrative structure of the Gospels. (1 Powell, Mark Allen “What Is Narrative Criticism?”) In 1969 William A. Beardslee suggested that literary approaches to the Bible were much needed in light of much of the historical criticism that had gone on recently before him. Many current scholars have taken this advice and pursued historical Jesus research with this additional tool. Dominic Crossan, and Robert Funk are two names that stick out for their work on the literary nature of the parables. Literary criticism is also a striking feature of New Testament heavy weight NT Wright’s Magnus Opus Christian Origins Series.

There are many different forms and levels of literary analysis. Freytag’s approach is an example of a relatively simple literary analysis. (2 Freytag Techniques of Dramas) Time and Plot are plotted along different axis with the three major elements of a story represented (Desis, or the rising action and complication, Peripeteia, the climax and crisis, and finally Denouncement, falling action and unwinding). A more complicated approach to analyzing a narrative could be seen in the structuralism of A.J. Greimas. Richard Hays’ work on the narrative structure of Paul’s letters employed Greimas method. Hays’ work has been deeply influential in the world of New Testament studies.

Different types of literary analysis can be categorized according to its focus. Expressive types of criticism are author centered and evaluate the sincerity and adequacy of a writer. Historical Criticisms would fall under the category of Expressive and Mimetic. Mimetic types of criticisms focus on the truth of a work of literature in relation to the outer world. Pragmatic and Objective approaches are what have grown in recent years with biblical studies. Pragmatic approaches focus on the reader and the effect a text has on a reader, rhetorical criticism and deconstruction are examples of pragmatic approaches. Objective approaches are text centered, analyzing content according to intrinsic criteria. Here structuralism and narrative criticism find their home.

Evans on the temple and the restoration of Isreal

2008-01-03T15:51:00.001-08:00

I ran into a good quote by Craig A. Evans, who get bonus points in my mind for sharing the same first name as me, in his article "Jesus and the 'Cave of Robbers': Towards a Jewish Context for the Temple Action" available over at BiblicalStudies.org.uk Evan writes:

Here [Burton] Mack has put his finger on the classic problem that has confronted interpreters since scholarly life of Jesus research got underway: If Jesus was a teacher and miracle worker and no more, then how do we explain his arrest and crucifixion? But if Jesus was a revolutionary, and so got himself executed for acts of sedition, how do we explain the ancient and widespread portrait of him as a teacher and healer? It is the temple action that provides the vital historical link between Jesus the teacher and miracle worker, on the one hand, and Jesus the crucified criminal, on the other. Jesus’ miracles, teaching, and temple action, as will be shown in the second part of this paper, were all part of a coherent mission and ministry that make sense in and are to a great extent clarified by the Jewish context. His miracles and teaching were not simply acts of kindness and mercy, but were part of an agenda which had the restoration of Israel as its goal. The miracles and teaching anticipated the temple action, which formed Jesus’ final and climactic public teaching. The temple action was not a random, accidental event, but a deliberate and calculated demonstration.

The restoration of Israel as a major motif in Jesus' kingdom proclamation is a theme I hope to explore here more, time willing. It seems to me that when Jesus teachings and actions are put within this broader thought world it become much harder to separate the personal ethic from the national ethic in Jesus' teachings. This has serious consequences for how we today go about both our personal and corporate/national lives and suggests some ways that the church must engage the 'powers of the world' if we want to remain true to Jesus' Kingdom proclamation. It also raises some serious questions about the relation of the Old Testament to the New especially in light of Jesus teaching on non-violence.

Christology in Mark 2.5-12

2008-01-01T21:57:00.000-08:00

Mark 2.5-12 is an interesting passage. Here Jesus pronounces forgiveness of sins, Mark then narrates the inner thoughts of the Scribes, “Who can forgive sins but God alone” (εἷς ὁ θεός possibly pointing to Deut 6.4) After this Jesus performs a healing miracle so that they might know that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive.” This passage certainly carries Christological implications, but it isn’t entirely clear from a casual reading what that implication is. I want to try and spell out some of what that implication is here.

In v. 2.5 It’s possible that Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiving of sins is a divine passive, so that τέκνον, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι would be understood as “Child, God has forgiven your sins.” This understanding though is not without problems. It would hardly justify the ensuing controversy in the way that it plays out between the scribes and Jesus. If it were the case the expectation would be that the Scribes response would revolve around authority. Jesus wasn’t a member of the priestly class and would not have been recognized as authorized to pronounce God’s forgiveness of sins. This brings me to one of the major points in question, does Mark, by narrating the thoughts of the Scribes in response to Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness, point readers towards identifying Jesus with the God of Israel? Robert Guelich in his commentary on Mark 1-8.20 (WBC) comments that “Jesus was not being accused of claiming to be God but of blaspheming against God by claiming to do what God alone could do” (pg 87) The function of the Scribes response then is to frame the narrative in terms of identity, only God can forgive sins, rather than in terms of authorization, the temple is one authorized to pronounce God’s forgiveness. This is significant in the way that the narrative proceeds.

In v. 9 Jesus ask a questions of the scribes which then functions to invest meaning to the miracle he is about to perform. He makes this explicit when he says, “I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” He then heals the paralytic man in order to demonstrate his authority to forgive. A significant questions rises out of this. How does the authority that Jesus demonstrates relate to the preceding narrative? If Jesus is now claiming that he has merely been authorized to proclaim God’s forgiveness, this would effectively kill the dramatic tension that Mark has set up by narrating the scribes’ thoughts. If on the other hand, Jesus is claiming authority to forgive, this calls for a reexamination of Jesus in light of the Scribes question. Who is able to forgive except God alone? If Mark’s readers agree with the Scribes that only God alone is able to forgive, and I would think that any good Jew of the time would agree with this, the only option is to then see Jesus in terms of what R. Bauckham has called a Christology of divine identity, Jesus must be intrinsically part of the one who the Jews would describe as the one God (εἷς ὁ θεός).

A further piece of evidence invites comment. In v. 2.6 Mark narrates that the Scribes were thinking “in their hearts.” He then narrates that Jesus knew immediately what they were thinking, Guelich notes that R. Pesch (Das Markusevangelium, HTKNT) thinks that this is an allusion to God as the knower of hearts in the OT [1 Sam 16.7; 1 Kgs 8.39; Ps 7.9 (LXX 10); Jer 11.20; Sir 42.18–20; cf. Acts 1.24; 15.8; Luke 16.15], if this is the case then case for identifying Jesus with God is strengthen and solidified. First off though, the question of whether Pesch is warranted in thinking that there is an allusion here is a necessary one? Can Jesus’ knowledge of what the scribes were thinking be attributed to any sort of divine insight on Jesus’ part? One the one hand Jesus would have been aware of the cultural understanding that God alone is able to forgive. By directly engaging this assumption Jesus could have easily anticipated the reaction of the Scribes, so some caution is warranted before attributing divine insight to Jesus in this case. However, Mark has narrated that the Scribes questioning was done in their hearts, he then states that immediately Jesus knew what they were thinking. The ‘immediately’ implies a much more specific link to Jesus’ knowledge than just a mere general understanding based on cultural assumptions. Pesch’s allusion then is at least possible if not likely given the way that Mark narrates the event.

A Christology of divine identity wouldn’t be unique to this one passage in Mark either. At the end of Mark 4.35-41, the disciples ask one another “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” (TNIV) As a number of commentators have noted the preceding narrative alludes to a number of Old Testament passages. [Pss 89.9-10, 104.7, 107.25-29; Job 26.11-12, Jonah 1] If these verbal allusions are intentional on Mark’s part, then it is very likely that he is using the disciples’ question in v. 41 to help readers reflect on this aspect of his narrative and draw the conclusion that Jesus and Israel’s God, who is sovereign over all of creation, should be identified in some sense.

Faith and Politics

2007-12-30T13:01:00.000-08:00

I've been working on my application to Princeton Theological Seminary and part of the application calls for some reflective essays. One of the questions asks the applicant to state, in a paragraph mind you, their hopes and concerns for the church and its mission. My response to the question was that I want to see the church become more political. Faith and politics have become a huge topic of conversation, both in the church, and in the larger culture, there are some ways of engaging politically by the church that I'm not too fond of, and there are some ways of engaging that I'm much more of a fan of, and some ways of engaging that I think need to be reflected in the Church both locally, nationally, and internationally.

When I look at the religious right, I see some engagement with the political system, I think this is a good thing. Its entirely proper that the Christian faith be represented in the political system. For the church to not engage with the world politically, it would be tantamount to denying that Christ is Lord over all of creation, that's not an option. However the right has largely concerned itself with just a small number of issues, largely relating to issues surrounding sexuality, hardly representative of the Bible as a whole.

This has led to the rise of guys like Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo, who have looked to represent a much broader range of issues that the bible concerns itself with. I'm reading Wallis' book, "God's Politics" right now and for having just started it, I'm impressed with some of the thinking that Wallis is doing. I think he and the other Evangelical progressives are 100% correct in seeing that the Bible is concerned about social and economic justice. I would agree that the church needs to recapture it's prophetic voice declaring to the nations God's heart for the poor, the widow, the orphans, and the oppressed along with God's demands for righteousness in our lives as sexual beings.

While I agree with at least some of what's going on in the church engaging politically with the world, there are some important things that I don't see going on that have concerned me in this endeavor. First and foremost, can engaging politically be the work of just a few voices within the Church? When I think of the church and politics, I think first of the religious right, who have done a much better job of getting the churches on board with what they are doing. The right though seemed to be largely dominated by a few voices, the Pat Robertsons, James Dobsons, and John Hagees. On the progressive side I think of the voices of Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. I would think that with such few voices representing the Church, on either side, the tendency for distortion is huge. I really want to see the entire Church, protestant, catholic, and orthodox, come together and work towards finding a unified voice that is representative of scripture as a whole.

My second concern, and probably my bigger concern, is that if the Church only engages the world politically by looking to influence and steer the government, how is the church any different than any other political lobby group? I don't think that the Church can just live in a nice neat bubble separated from the world, never looking to engage with the powers, but neither should the church's function in the world be relegated to just another political lobby group. Here I find myself identifying largely with guys like Stanely Hauerwas, and Michael Gorman who see the church as a separate polis, a separate city state, whose vocation it is to offer an alternative way of live, both personally, and politically. What would it look like then, if the church, instead of merely trying to lobby governments for 3rd world debt relief, took the lead and began to work at doing large scale 3rd world economic relief and development? I would imagine that here in the United States, and world wide, the Church could pull together a large amount of resources for doing some thing just like that.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ

2007-12-29T14:23:00.000-08:00

I've decided to start writing this blog for a couple of reason. I've learned a lot from those bloggers out there who been kind enough to share their thoughts and so I hope to add to the blog world with my own thoughts. I also hope to use this space to refine my writing and thinking skills. I also need an outlet to write on those things that make a large majority of my friends go cross-eyed when I mention them, things like inaugurated eschatology, and Greek grammar which I’ve been studying on my own.

I choose the title λέων καὶ ἀρνίον based on chapter 5 of the book of Revelation. For those of you who don't read Greek this phrase means Lion and Lamb. As I’ve continued to read and study through the Bible I’ve become increasingly fascinated by the politics of the early Christian Church and their World. One of the things that the book of Revelation does particularly strongly is subvert Roman Imperial claims by presenting the reign of Jesus Christ as the true bringer of salvation and judgment. In my mind there’s not a better image of this then the image of Lion and Lamb that John gives us. Christ is worthy to unveil God’s plan of salvation and redemption as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, but the text is richly suggestive when John sees a lamb looking as if it had been slain.