This Blog Has Been Shut Down…New Blog Has Opened Up!

Just one final reminder before this blog is archived. I have moved on and am now posting at Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. Show some love and check it out…on the reg!

The Time Has Come…The End Is Upon Us!

Regular readers of my blog will recognize that I did not post my regular Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday posts this past week, for the first time in this blog’s (approximately) one year existence. This is because I have come to the decision that the time has come for me to conclude my period of writing at παλιγγενεσία: The Regeneration, and to begin a new blog project. This was a difficult decision, but I believe it to be the correct one. When I began writing at this blog, I had certain goals and intentions, and certain issues which I desired to focus in on and write about, and discuss with others. I had a certain blog identity that I desired to put forth and communicate, but I find that at this point in my life, my focus is changing somewhat. I have learned a great deal over the past year, both writing here, and interacting with other bloggers; things that I will no doubt carry over with me as I begin my new project. Yet, I believe that my style and emphasis will change in ways that will differ quite massively from those which initially inspired me to begin writing here, and so I ultimately believe that it might be better to go and get a fresh start elsewhere.

My new blog is entitled Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. I have one post up already, which is a brief discussion of the early church and the theology of empire, sparked by Joerg Rieger’s book, “Christ & Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times”. I have also posted what amounts to an about page (equivalent to “Our Mission” on this page) located in the upper right hand corner of the new blog’s main page, entitled, “In Anticipation of an Anti-Imperial Theology of the Oppressed“. Likely, you are probably now beginning to see the direction in which I am headed. This is really a brand new experience for me. I am not well read in this area whatsoever, but I believe that it is absolutely essential that I begin to explore these issues much more thoroughly than I have to date. I hope that you will join me on this journey, that you will assist me in my education, push me, and possibly even learn from me as I advance in my own understanding. If you would like to learn more about my current perspective, what interests me most at this time, and what the emphasis of the new blog will be, I suggest that you take a look at the above linked about page.

One of my biggest fears about leaving this blog to start up a new one at a new address was that I would lose my readership which has been steadily building over the past year. It’s not that I am so concerned with stats (though I am to some extent; who isn’t!), but more that I have always hoped that my writing would spark discussion which would promote learning, especially on my own part. As of yet, The Regeneration has not been a place where there is a lot of discussion (one of the reasons why I finally concluded that it was worth taking the chance of leaving), but, of course, there is a much better chance of there being conversation if people are actually reading your blog! I am sure that I will take a hit by moving, I just have to hope that the content and writing will be more interesting, and more conducive to discussion. One way that you can help (if you are a supporter of this blog, and me) is that you could simply follow me over there. You can do this by regularly checking out the new blog, updating your blogroll if you currently have The Regeneration on it (or even add it to your blogroll if you don’t), subscribing to the new blog, or even by announcing my move to others. I would appreciate any of the help that you can give. This blog will remain up, and this will be the last post; but you can continue to read things that I have written in the past. Thanks

Remembering Jesus With James Dunn: Part 1

I came across this, the first in a series of three lectures, entitled. “Remembering Jesus”, given by James Dunn, as part of the 2003 Hayward lecture Series. In this lecture, he begins to critique some of, what he believes to be, the methodological problems inherent within the mainstream of the so-called quest for the historical Jesus. The two primary points that he wishes to make, in this first talk, relate to the distinction that is made between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and, the term historical Jesus itself. I found the lecture stimulating, and his points solid. In my opinion it is definitely worth taking the time to watch it.

The Subversive Prayer Of The Sons Of The Father: Heaven On Earth…YHWH’s Transcendent Morality, And His Imminence With Humanity

Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.] (Matthew 6:9-13)

I suggested in last week’s post that, in this prayer, Jesus was drawing upon the theme of God’s spacial and authoritative transcendence in service to His ethical and moral agenda. I believe that He and the Pharisees would have stood firmly in agreement about the fact that God was totally other and distinct from, as well as authoritative over, the nation, as well as the rest of the Gentile world. It was YHWH alone who had the prerogative to set the parameters for proper ethics and moral behavior in the world of humanity; and perhaps especially, in Israel, His chosen people. The following two sentences in the prayer focus in upon the desire of God’s people for Him to draw near to them; in other words, the emphasis draws us towards categories of imminence. Again, as I began to note last time as well, Jesus also desired to use the theme of God’s imminence in service of his ethical and moral agenda. Let us begin to think about how these two seemingly paradoxical ideas come together in Jesus’ prayer. There was first the recognition that God existed in a place called heaven; and He was literally separated from His creation. Next, Jesus prayed for God’s heavenly kingdom to come to the land of Israel, which He further defined as God’s will being done in Israel, as (apparently) it is always done in heaven. I believe that Jesus was here expressing the common Jewish hope that YHWH would restore the nation to their land, and the kingdom to Israel.

Beyond that was the related recognition of the need for Israel to return to the purpose and intent of YHWH in the Torah. The Torah was, of course, a reflection of God’s will for the nation. Now of course, recognizing that I have decided (not only here, but also in the Beatitudes) to translate the Greek word gē (usually translated earth) as land, I want to be sure that I am not confusing my readers. The Jews were called to be salt and light, and as God’s elect people, they were certainly concerned to see the will of God, as expressed in the Torah, spread over the face of the entire earth. That said, the Israelite people, who at this point in history, were living under the oppressive rule of the Roman empire, and considered themselves to have been living in a state of perpetual exile, were principally concerned with the re-establishment of the Davidic kingdom, and the return of the rule of the land of Israel to YHWH (through the Torah), and to the Jewish people themselves. I am persuaded that it is more likely that the Jews were primarily focused upon the return of the rule of YHWH to the land, the nation of Israel itself; even though, in a secondary sense, the re-establishment of the kingdom in Israel would most definitely have signified the re-institution of their role and mission as God’s elect people on the earth, and to the nations. To summarize this point, it seems that Jesus’ prayer reflects the desire of the Jewish people, to see the sovereign rule of YHWH, revealed in the Torah, returned to the land of Israel.

Another important aspect of this Jewish hope was the return of YHWH Himself to dwell in the holiest place of the Temple; the occurrence of which, of course, would signify the forgiveness of Israel’s sin of rebellion against YHWH, which had gotten them cast into exile and captivity and the first place (I spoke some more about this here). Once more, if you will, allow me to attempt a simplified summary of the Jewish hope which Jesus’ prayer was an expression of. They longed for YHWH to forgive their sin of rebellion against His will expressed in Torah; a forgiveness which would take the form of YHWH’s return to dwell in the midst of Israel (imminence), the return of Israel from exile, the re-establishment of the kingdom of David, the re-institution of the Torah as the law of the land, and the restoration of Israel to their role and mission as God’s elect people. I think that it is quite obvious that matters of ethics and morality are intricately intertwined with each and every aspect of this hope. The transcendent YHWH, who was imminent in Israel, had become distant from them, as a result of sin. It was the defilement brought about by Israel’s sin which established their need for cleansing and forgiveness; a necessary prerequisite to YHWH’s return to, and life within, Israel and the Temple. Israel’s release from their current bondage under Roman captivity would have signified a new Exodus, the introduction of a new covenant, and the return of God’s chosen people to the land of promise.

For Israel, the re-establishment of the kingdom would have meant that, once again, the son of God was seated on the throne of David, ruling the people of God on behalf of YHWH. At the center of both the covenant and the kingdom was to be the Torah, which was a way of living (ethics and morality), given by YHWH, in order to direct His people so that things might go well with them and their sons forever; so that they might posses the land, and prolong their days in it. Finally, Israel’s role as God’s elect was to manifest, through their adherence to the way of life prescribed by YHWH in the Torah, the ethical character and moral qualities of their God; which stood in opposition to the more or less typical modus operandi of the Gentile world, and all sinners. As I have said from the start, I do not believe that there would have been one ounce of disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees up to this point. So what was the problem? Again, as I said last time (and really, since we began looking at the Sermon), the real issue between these two would have been with regard to their perspective definitions of a Torah-centric school of ethics. Yes, God’s morality was transcendent; but what exactly was so different about the ethics of YHWH, in comparison with those of the world? Yes, God was imminent with, in, and through His people Israel; but how was the fact of God’s imminence to impact Israel’s relations with both Gentile and Jewish sinners? I believe that these are the questions at issue in Jesus’ prayer.

Kingdom Chronicles For The Week Ending 7/16/11

I came across this exciting discussion (at Two Friars and a Fool)  between Richard Beck and Daniel Kirk, with regard to which viewpoint (universalism or non-universalism) is the most beautiful ending to the Christian story. Richard’s opening remarks are here, in support of the universalist position. Daniel’s opening comments are here. I believe that responses from both men are forthcoming.

Daniel has also been posting a lot of good stuff on Colossians, here, here, here, and here.

Kevin Brown began a series on the Christology of Mark, with the first two posts here and here.

Joel Watts continued his review of Mark Galli’s, “God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins”, here, here, and here.

If you would like to be introduced to, or are seeking to understand, Process Theology (like I am) take a listen to the Homebrewed Theology podcast from this past week (here), which featured Bruce Epperly, author of the book, “Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed”.

I really appreciated this post here, written by Brian LePort, with regard to the whole Mark Driscoll fiasco that occurred last week (if you haven’t heard about it, Brian discusses it, and links to others who have spoken about it, in his post). His questions are mine, and I am often torn about how we, as Christians, are to handle these issues of public, or private, rebuke. All of the answers that I usually come up with are highly subjective and beneficial to myself and my own personal stance with regard to the issues involved, and it appears that it isn’t much different as far as anyone else is concerned either; at least in my experience.

I saw that Lecrae had released a new video for his song, “Just Like You”, featuring J. Paul, off of his recent release, “Rehab”. So, I decided to post it for the Hip Hop joint of the week. Enjoy it!

The Other Way (Now What?) With Walter Brueggemann: Lecture 2

In late 2010, at St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, in Cincinnati, Ohio, Dr. Walter Brueggemann presented a series of lectures entitled, “The Other Way (Now What?)”. In this lecture, Dr. Brueggemann discusses the role of the prophets and prophecy. He notes that conservative biblical scholars have gotten it all wrong, for having considered the prophets to have been predictors (especially of Jesus). He also notes that the liberal scholars have gotten it all wrong, for having considered the prophets to have been social activists (not that social activism is a bad thing). He actually considers the prophets to have been poets, who had the courage to imagine the world as if YHWH, the God of Sinai, were an actual agent, and the decisive character in the history of the world. He suggests that God Himself was at work on the lips of the prophets, and goes on to explain the ways in which the prophets utilized their poetic skills to offer a different view of the perceived reality in Israel and Judah. He concludes by seeking to understand and offer ways whereby we, the church, might employ the poetry of prophecy in our own day and time. There was, as always, a Q and R session following the lecture.

Cosmic Recreation Part 13: A Pattern Of Hope, For Hope, In The Midst Of Suffering

Since the outset of this series, I have been attempting to reconstruct an outline of the big picture of the biblical narrative; in service to our goal of seeking answers to the questions, who is God, and what in the world is He doing? I began by allowing the early chapters of Genesis to set the trajectory for the rest of the bible’s story. We began with Adam and Eve. We saw that they were representative of humanity as a corporate entity, and that their story was actually the story of humanity with relation to God, one another, and the rest of creation. The tale spoke of how God had created all things good, and had given humanity the responsibility of ruling over the world; but it also told us that humanity had screwed everything up, and this was essentially the writer’s explanation for how the good world that God had created had become such a mess. At the end, we noted that, although there were consequences to Adam and Eve’s actions, God still loved them and cared for them, and promised mercy and restoration. Next, we looked at the story of Noah. Though his story took place in the midst of a judgment of God upon all of humanity (with the exception of Noah and his family, of course), it was also a story of hope for humanity, in at least two ways. First, Noah was a new Adam; a hope for humanity beyond God’s worldwide judgment, and second, God announced His remorse over the way that He had handled things, and promised never to destroy all of humanity, in that manner, again. Humanity might once again gain, from this story, a reason to hope in God’s mercy and restoration.

Third, we looked at Abraham. Though the world after Noah had once again tumbled down into a seemingly endless spiral of sin and rebellion (Babel), God in His mercy, decided to approach the situation differently than He had at the time of the flood. Rather than unleashing destruction, He called Abraham and his family to be His special people; through whom He would bring mercy and restoration to the rest of the world. It is at this point in the story that the biblical narrative narrows its focus; spotlighting the history of Abraham and his descendants. The overwhelming remainder of the bible is centered upon the history of this very specific group of people; they through whom God desired to bring about His universal objective. Then, we skipped over the majority of Israel’s history, and jumped to a crucial point in their story which occurred after the death and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah; Jesus of Nazareth. In Romans 9-11, Paul retold the story of Israel, giving us a brief overlook of the way that he had understood their history, from Abraham, to the then present time. In Paul’s day, there was a judgment approaching on the imminent horizon. He was confident that, in Jesus, God was providing a way of escape for Israel, so that they might be granted a life, as a corporate entity, in the age to come (that period on the other side of this historical judgment), in which they could continue to bear witness to God’s new creation, and usher the world, filled with thorns and thistles, into the righteous blessing of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul, the way of living prescribed by Jesus was the way of historical salvation for Israel.

Paul did not lose sight, in the difficult discussion of Romans 9-11, of the missional role of Israel as God’s elect people; they were to be God’s means of blessing and restoration, which He desired to bring to all of the nations. It was the fact that a large number of Israelites had rejected this mission (most clearly displayed by their rejection of Jesus, who had sought to draw Israel back toward their role as God’s elect) that forced Paul to answer questions with regard to God’s outlook and attitude towards the physical descendants of Abraham. To put things simply, Paul concluded that, although many Israelites could not be considered part of the elect anymore (since the elect had been redefined around Jesus, whom they were rejecting), that did not mean that they were no longer being pursued by God, or that they should no longer be considered objects of God’s love and mercy in His saving purpose. The definition of the elect had changed, but the role of the elect had remained the same; and so now that the Jesus rejecting Israelites had now found themselves in the position of the outsider Gentiles, it was the role of the Jew/Gentile church to extend mercy and love toward them, in the hope of reconciliation and restoration, which was they exact thing that the Jesus rejecting Israelites had failed to do, and the very reason for which they had been cut off. Here again, on many levels (with regard to both Jew and Gentile), we saw that God was providing the hope of mercy and restoration on the other side of judgment; and again, as with the Genesis stories, that judgment itself is always a means of mercy for the judged themselves.

I obviously have left out quite a bit of Israel’s history (having hoped that Paul’s brief synopsis in Romans 9-11 could carry the load for me), but really, over and over again, throughout the history of this nation, a continuing pattern of creation/recreation, judgment, recreation/restoration, appears, and reappears. It can be strongly argued that the most important period of time in Israel’s history was what is known as the Babylonian captivity. In fact, for the most part (as far as I understand) a majority of critical scholars believe (and I tend to agree) that most (if not all) of the OT was written (or at least complied or redacted) during, or subsequent to, this time period. Israel clearly believed that she was in captivity as a result of her breaking of the covenant with YHWH. The covenant established the relationship between YHWH and Israel, and now that it had been annulled as a result of Israel’s disobedience, the covenant itself offered them little hope of restoration. Yet, all throughout the prophets, we see an expression of the belief that God will begin something new; by springing forth the light of hope from out of the darkness of despair. They began to gather together the stories and myths of Israel’s history, in order to give expression to their understanding of why things currently were the way that they were (why they were in captivity and/or exile). They did this in many ways, and from many different perspectives. For example, in the creation story, Adam is not only representative of humanity (as we have discussed), he is fundamentally a representative of Israel. In other words, the story of Adam prefigures the story of Israel; it was a mythological (in the best, and true, sense of the word) way of expressing Israel’s history and plight.

All of the stories which we have considered so far in this series, as well as many others, were penned and/or compiled in order to offer an explanation for why Israel was experiencing what they were at the time, and to offer hope to this oppressed and downcast people. Even those books written much later (like the book of Daniel) had a similar purpose; for although Babylon was no longer Israel’s captor at that time, another empire, specifically a portion of Greece, was. The situation often appeared bleak, if not completely devastating; but although Israel was where she was as a result of her own sinful rebellion and rejection of the covenant, there was a still ray of hope. They could, and would, appeal to God’s acts in history; events such as the creation, the flood and Noah, Abraham’s calling, Jacob and Joseph, the exodus, the Sinai covenant, and the multitude of stories of deliverance which had been told, and retold, in the historical books. All of these stories presented a pattern which gave Israel a reason to hope, even in the midst of exile and judgment, in God’s mercy and love; a pattern, as I have already declared, of creation/recreation, judgment, recreation/restoration. Over and over again, Israel had broken covenant with YHWH, and over and over again, YHWH had restored His people Israel. Judgment certainly was necessary, but it had never been the end of the story. In fact, the judgment (whichever one you choose) itself was always presented as a means of mercy and grace, through which God intended to accomplish the salvation of His people. The OT then, was a book of books and stories, brought together in order to convince Israel that she had a reason to hope, even in the midst of the most hopeless of circumstances.

The repeating pattern we have examined was Israel’s way of expressing their belief in YHWH’s undying love and mercy for, and toward, His people. It tells us a great deal about the way in which the ancient Israelites (the root which supports us!) understood the nature and purpose of wrath and judgment. Obviously, we are absolutely not to abstract these concepts from the very Jewish context of God’s love and mercy, or from His purpose of restoration. There are questions that I could see arising at this juncture, but we will have to wait until next week’s post to begin to deal with them. We will start by thinking about whether the pattern that we find in the OT (that which expresses the undying love and mercy of God for Israel) is applicable to Israel alone, or, if it in fact extends beyond the borders of Israel, to those who are not numbered amongst the elect. Hopefully, time permitting (I don’t want these posts to be any longer than they already are!), I would then like to briefly tackle the issue of whether or not this pattern will ever come to a close. In other words, will there ever come a time when what Israel’s prophets communicated about YHWH will no longer be true? Is there coming a time when the hopeless will be stripped of any reason for hope, when YHWH will no longer hold out His hand of mercy to the oppressed and downtrodden (as a result of their sin), and when judgment will no longer have a primarily restorative quality, but instead, will serve as a means of retribution, released from the hands of a once merciful, but now entirely an eternally, wrathful God? These are important questions, which must be asked, and which must not be ignored. They are essential if we truly are seeking to know who God is, and what in the world He is doing.

N.T. Wright Discusses The Themes Of His Book, “After You Believe”

Here is a lecture featuring NT scholar and author N.T. Wright, in which he discusses the themes of his recent book, “After You Believe”. The book has to do with ethics and Christian character development, and this lecture is actually very similar to another of Wright’s lectures that I posted not too long ago (here). He tells some of the same stories and uses some of the same examples that he did in that talk, but there is some new material in this lecture that certainly compliments the previous video; so it is worth watching this one as well if the topic interests you.

The Subversive Prayer Of The Sons Of The Father: Our Transcendent God, Our Imminent God

Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.] (Matthew 6:9-13)

This prayer, in an important sense, appears quite paradoxical; for it portrays the God of Israel as one who is both imminent (a Father, in a familial relationship with His people, who is with them, and caring for their everyday needs) and transcendent (one who is in heaven, holy, distinct, and set apart from the world). How do these idea relate? Well, we begin this week by looking at the transcendent qualities of God. First of all, Jesus tells us that the Father is residing in a place called heaven. The ancient Jews believed that the universe was more or less made up of levels stacked up one on top of the other; kind of like a building with many floors, or perhaps more accurately, like an onion with many layers (for they believed that it was shaped like a dome). It began, at the base, with a flat earth which stood on top of pillars (Sheol beneath the surface). Above that was the firmament, or the sky, which included things like clouds, stars, the sun, and the moon (sometimes referred to as the first heaven). On top of that level was a layer of water (think of Genesis 1, when the author says that the firmament, that is, the first heaven, separated the waters from the waters). At the pinnacle was the heaven of heavens, and as far as the ancient Israelites were concerned, that was where YHWH dwelt. When, then, Jesus prayed to the Father who was in heaven, this is what He had in mind. He was no doubt thinking in literal spacial terms, and communicating the fact that God was both separate from, and distinct from, His creation; dwelling somewhere out there.

Next Jesus sets out to hallow the name of God. This is yet another reference to God’s set-apartedness from the world; but probably with a different emphasis. He was seeking to venerate God, to honor Him, to lift up His name. He was, after all, the one who was located in heaven; which was, in Jewish thought believed to be the place where the throne of God was located. I believe that Jesus was seeking to draw the attention of His audience toward the fact that God was holy, distinct, set apart, an located above, in an authoritative sense, as the Sovereign ruler of the cosmos. Now, this (God’s spacial and authoritative transcendence) was undoubtedly a concept that the Pharisaic religion of Jesus’ day would have wholeheartedly agreed with. The problem that would have arisen between Jesus and the Pharisees, then, would not have been with regard to transcendence. There also would not have been a dispute over the reality that God was imminent; the Father, in a familial relationship with, and dwelling in and amongst, His people Israel. If these things are true, then in what way was Jesus (as He was doing throughout the entirety of the Sermon) seeking to distinguish Himself from the Pharisees? I believe that the primary difference which Jesus desired to accentuate between Himself and the Pharisees is the same as it has been all along throughout the Sermon on the Mount; that being the morality and ethics of the two groups. Therefore, I see Jesus’ focus on the seemingly paradoxical categories of transcendence and imminence coming together under the rubric of morality and ethics.

Understanding this will greatly assist us as we go forward. First of all, when we grasp that Jesus main reason for using the categories of transcendence and imminence had to do with His desire to communicate and encourage a particular understanding of morality and ethics, it takes our focus away from the ancient Jewish cosmology, and his usage of spacial terminology. Clearly, Jesus would have believed, along with his contemporaries, that the picture above accurately represented the composition and organization of the cosmos; and obviously, we in the modern world know that He would have been entirely wrong; scientifically speaking. While Jesus certainly accepted this ancient cosmology, and although He was certainly using it as a way of expressing the total otherness, and also, the utter nearness, of YHWH, He was absolutely not concerned with insisting that, regardless of scientific development, all people of all times were to blindly accept the validity of this ancient cosmological model. I am quite sure that, as long as His original audience understood the ethical implications of His teachings, He would have cared less what they did with His cosmology. Also, unless we understand that Jesus was utilizing the commonly accepted cosmological model as a tool for His ethical and moral teaching, then it will be impossible to distinguish any difference between His prayer here, and any other prayer that might have been offered up to YHWH by the Pharisees. Eventually, the morality of Jesus will effectively redefine transcendence and imminence as the Pharisees understood the terms; exposing the differences between the two schools.

Kingdom Chronicles For The Week Ending 7/9/11

Joel Watts continued his review of Mark Galli’s response to Rob Bell’s, “Love Wins”, entitled, “God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins”, here. Roger Olsen, apparently a friend of Galli’s, also offered some thoughts on the book, here.

Tim Gombis concludes his series on the doctrine of election, here.

Bobby Grow began reviewing Richard Bauckham’s little book, “The Theology of the Book of Revelation” (an excellent read, in my opinion), from his (Bobby’s) historic pre-mil perspective, here.

Sho Baraka is probably my favorite Hip Hop artist right now. His last release, “Lions and Liars”, holds a special place in my heart because the lyrical content of the album really ministered to me in a difficult period of my life. For a number of reasons, I had reached a point of crisis in my faith, and this album let me know that my struggles were not abnormal, and that others were asking many of the same questions that I was, and arriving, often times, at similar points of conclusion. My changing beliefs eventually brought me to the point where I had to part ways with my former church, for though I was willing to learn to work together with those whom I had substantial disagreements with (but still considered brothers and sisters in Christ), I knew that my opportunity to minister to the church would be limited (if not totally non-existent), and that I would continue to be boxed out, and looked at with suspicion, for my evolving beliefs were undoubtedly being viewed as a heretical threat to the congregation. I was no longer being viewed as an equal participant in the life of the church; at best a deceived brother in need of persistent correction, and at worst, a dangerous wolf.

Anyways, Sho’s lyrics were a comfort to a brother in need of encouragement from like-minded people, especially in light of the fact that I was completely surrounded by Christians who were more interested in tearing me down in order to manipulate me into falling in line with the status quo, and in convincing me of the unquestionable correctness of neo-Puritanism, than with walking with me on this journey of faith, stepping outside of our tradition, and asking the difficult questions which, frankly, neo-Puritanism has no answers for; and actually, the answers it offer to those questions have the potential of deeply damaging, if not entirely ruining, people’s lives. Little did I know that Sho was soon to announce that he would be leaving Reach Records to start a new label with J.R., Swoope, and Suzy Rock; High Society. I’m not sure if Sho’s experience was as troublesome as my own, or even if, theologically, we are on completely parallel paths; but after listening to this 3 part interview about why he left Reach, I definitely see some similarities. So check out Sho’s reasons for leaving, as well as his philosophies on the relationship between Christ and culture, and what it means to spread the gospel.

There is an awful lot of agreement between Sho and I on these issues (even though I would like to here him flesh out some of these ideas more, and wrestle with him over a few points; still, what he is saying is both profound, and profoundly Christian!), and it appears like (if my reading between the lines is anywhere near accurate) his reasons for departing from Reach are not that different from my reasons for leaving my former church (in a lot of ways, that is). So, for what its worth, Sho, (if by some odd chance you ever read this) it seems that you handled this issue with a lot of class, and in the honorable and dignified manner that is characteristic of a disciple of Jesus. It is sad that you had to break with Reach, but I think that you made the right move. I wholeheartedly applaud your approach to life, art, and ministry, as well as this courageous step of faith. I believe that this is what being a follower of Christ is all about; even if there are many brothers and sisters out that who disagree. Don’t let the haters hold you down. Some Christians are just set in their ways, but you, my brother, are breaking down needless barriers and removing stumbling blocks to the gospel, and I pray that your art will have an enormous impact, and a life changing influence in people’s lives.

In related news, I will now present the (sort of) Hip Hop joint of the week, which is from Sho’s label mate, J.R., off of his recently released mix tape, “Murray’s Grammar”. The song is entitled, “Weird Fishes”, and if I am understanding the lyrics correctly, it appears that J.R. has been experiencing similar problems and emotions as well over the last few years. Have people been questioning the legitimacy of his faith profession as a result of his (and High Society’s) philosophy? I am definitely not looking to spread rumors; I guess it’s just comforting to hear that I am not the only one who’s faced these emotional and spiritual struggles. The cream of the crop of Christian Hip Hop is definitely dominated by a fundamentalist mindset (for the most part at least), often of the neo-Puritan breed. That’s where I come from, and from experience, I know that High Society’s agenda is probably not very popular in those circles. Check it out, and let me know what you think…maybe I’m hearing it wrong.

The Other Way (Now What?) With Walter Brueggemann: Lecture 1

Just when you though that it was over…it turns out that in late 2010, at St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, in Cincinnati, Ohio, Dr. Brueggemann presented a follow-up series of lectures entitled, “The Other Way (Now What?)”. In this introductory lecture, Dr. Brueggemann contrasts the way of the Sinai covenant and Deuteronomy, with the way of Pharaoh and Solomon. He asserts that the covenantal, neighborly, and restful way of Sinai/Deuteronomy offers an alternative, and superior way of living to that of the rat race of the empire, of which Pharaoh and Solomon serve as examples. He lays out some broad principles that might guide us in our understanding; leaving the details of interpretation and implementation up to us as individuals living in community; which I appreciate greatly. There continues to be a time of Q and R following the lecture, which highlights and expands upon some of the ideas that appeared in the talk itself.

Accommodation: Why Choose Omniscience Over Openness?

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about accommodation with regard to our understanding of the way in which God communicates, specifically through the scriptures, to humanity. As we all know, there are often tensions between two or more viewpoints in scripture, and when one viewpoint is emphasized over another in an attempt to harmonize an apparent contradiction in the bible, a couple of things occur: that which is de-emphasized is ignored or implicitly rejected altogether, and a split occurs within the church. I am currently thinking of the debate between omniscience and openness. If we are in any way honest, and not entirely enslaved to our theological viewpoint, we will notice that there are some texts in the bible which appear to support the idea that God flawlessly knows the future, and other passages that cause many to conclude that His knowledge of the future is limited. The human biblical writers sometimes present God as one who either determines, or predicts, the outcome of history as it unfolds, and at other times, scripture’s human authors announce (more often than many people have assumed!) that God has, and does, change His mind, or that He has, and does, repent of actions that He has taken.

Classical theists emphasize God’s omniscience; those passages which seem to presume that God knows the future perfectly. Open theists emphasize the other passages; those which apparently presume that God is not enslaved to a future that has already been predetermined in eternity past. Related to this discussion are the subjects of impassibility and immutability: that is, the unchangeableness and unalterableness of God. Those who believe in omniscience also tend to believe, since the future is already set in stone, that God will act in accordance with that which has been either predetermined, or foreseen, from eternity past; He will not change course under any circumstances. Open theists tend to believe, since the future is not set in stone, that the actions and behaviors of the creature actually have an impact on God; that He reacts, and changes (and in some sense, develops), in response to the development of His creation. To be honest and forthright about my theological bias, I tend to lean more towards a theology of openness; but not slavishly so. I try not to read openness (for example), into the prophecies of Daniel (even though I take the position that Daniel’s prophecies were written ex eventu; after the event), because I believe that it would distort the authors intent.

Aside from the issues of the dating of texts, and whether or not many of the bible’s prophecies were written ex eventu; there is the issue of why, when the bible so obviously presents both perspectives, you or I might choose to accentuate one over the other, when to do so automatically forces us to reject the other? Obviously, God cannot not know, and simultaneously know completely, the future; these two ideas flat-out contradict each other. It is at this point that theologians tend to grasp for the legitimate hermeneutical tool known as accommodation. Basically, the idea is that, since humanity is immature, fallible, and finite, we are incapable of understanding God as He is in His perfect, infallible, infinitude; so He must accommodate Himself to us. Though this is certainly a legitimate (and important) mode of interpretation, it is certainly possible to misuse it as well; and I believe that classical theists tend to do just that in this particular case. Here is my main beef, posed as a question: On what grounds do we find it legitimate to assume that when the scriptures speak of God changing His mind, or repenting, that he is accommodating to a people who could not comprehend omniscience, rather than vice versa?

There are certainly presuppositions at work on both sides of the debate, and for the purpose of simplification, I will narrow the discussion to two essential topics; our beliefs about which (I believe) has a direct impact upon which of these two options we choose. These two issues are: the way in which we define perfection, and the way in which we understand the relationship between transcendence and imminence. Classical theists usually include, in their definitions of perfection, as well as transcendence, the five main classical attributes of God: immutability, impassibility (and the related term, aseity), omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Therefore, those who lean towards openness (as I, myself, do) need to recognize that when we seek to deconstruct classical theism, classical theists automatically assume that we are attacking God, by claiming that He is neither perfect or transcendent. I believe, then, that our goal in discussing these issues with classical theists, at least primarily, must be to seek to show them that we do not disbelieve, nor do we wish to cast doubt upon, the perfection and transcendence of God; rather, we are questioning why classical theists define perfection and transcendence the way that they do, and also, whether or not their definitions agree with the bible’s portrayal of God.

Although there is not much discussion going on (at this point) on my blog, I hope that a conversation will ensue between those who are more classical and their affirmation, and those who lean toward, or wholeheartedly embrace, the openness model. I will begin with some questions and propositions, which I hope will spark off the discussion. What is it that makes a God who is unchanging and unemotional more perfect than one who is changing and emotional? I believe that both sides of this debate agree that God is both willing and able to accomplish His purposes for creation. In light of this, what makes the God of omniscience (who knows all in advance, whether by decree or foreknowledge) more powerful than the God who works out His purposes without previous knowledge of events as they unfold? Is it possible that the passages that classical theists use to prove omniscience are the accommodation to humanity, rather than those passages which seem to contradict the idea? Might not the ancient cosmological and metaphysical assumptions found in the text of scripture, which present God as far away, separate, and distinct, and transcendence in spacial, temporal, and ontological terms, themselves be accommodations, which assist humanity as we attempt to understand God’s relational imminence in a sinful world?

To build on the previous question; might ex eventu prophecies, which insinuate that God knows and controls the future, be an accommodated means of encouraging trust in the faithfulness, willingness, and ability of God to accomplish His purposes, rather than a literal account of God’s epistemology and workings? Is a determinative universe really more complicated to comprehend than one in which the future has not yet been determined, but yet in which still, God is able to accomplish His purposes for creation? What is the criteria we utilize whereby we are determining what is accommodation, and what is not? I am sure that there are a multitude of questions and responses that I have not asked, and which might arise (if people will get talking !)as a result of those things which I have laid out upon the discussion table. Allow me to remind you, I lean towards openness, and am pretty convinced that classical theism distorts the image of God that has been painted by the writers of scripture, but that does not mean that I could never be swayed by sound biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments. Also, I could use some sharpening in this area by others who lean towards, or embrace, openness; so feel free to engage me whether you agree totally, agree in part, or completely disagree. I long to learn!

Cosmic Re-Creation Part 12: Summarizing Romans 9-11 In Relation To Salvation

Over the last several weeks, we have set out to present an overview of Romans chapters 9-11. Although I was hesitant to take so much time to do so, I felt that it was necessary due to the profound problems that have been created as a result of much traditional exegesis of the passage, which is so often taken for granted, especially that which has been expounded within the Reformed Calvinist tradition (though of course, the problems are not limited to this school of thought alone). I want to take this week to summarize the most important points that I desired to draw forth from this passage from the beginning, but could not at the first, due to the fact that Paul’s intention and meaning has been so terribly skewed and blurred by the majority of Evangelicals (at least in America) today, who have been more or less accepting of the traditional viewpoint in one form or another. The list is as follows:

1. Paul was primarily concerned with Jew/Gentile relations in the church at Rome.

I believe that we must not seek to remove these chapters from the letter’s context, which is commonly viewed today as Paul’s attempt to secure unity in the church at Rome between Jews and Gentiles. I do not believe that the traditional Reformed view, which sees this passage as Paul’s exposition of a doctrine of election that is primarily concerned with determinism and free will, and the post-mortem salvation of individuals from hell, and to heaven, is compatible with Paul’s agenda, and therefore, if it were true, it would appear to make the section appear totally out of place (which, ironically, is what many who have accepted the traditional Reformed and Protestant view have often concluded, or at least struggled with).

2. Election is unconditional.

The Calvinists are correct at this point, understanding that God’s choice of certain individuals and either their families (or those who are united, in one way or another, to those individuals), was solely by God’s prerogative; having nothing at all to do with a foreseen future decision made by a people or people group (as some Arminians have assumed), or the behavior of a person and/or persons. Election is initiated by God’s grace, and God’s grace alone.

3. Election and hardening are flexible and changing categories.

Yet, the previous point is probably the only point that the Reformed have typically gotten right with regard to this passage, and really the entire biblical concept of election. First of all, just because one has been elected or hardened, that does not mean that they will necessarily remain elect or hard; in fact, the fact that these categories are flexible is one of the major problems that Paul was seeking to clarify within this portion of scripture. When God chose Isaac, it redefined what it meant to be a child of Abraham; and likewise with Jacob, the Exodus generation, and ultimately Jesus. Some that were counted amongst the elect, were now no longer elect, and were even now amongst the hardened; while some from amongst the hardened, had now become part of the elect. Much of Paul’s discussion set out to answer the questions: why? what does this mean for those formerly considered elect? And, how should the Gentile church feel and behave towards the Jesus rejecting Jews?

4. Election is corporate.

Also, election is most certainly (at least primarily) a corporate issue; and that is a consistent fact throughout all of the bible. The Reformed are quick to point out that Paul uses individuals (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob specifically), which he does; but there are other aspects of the passage which the Reformed appear to be mostly unaware of, which I believe absolutely devastate their thesis; the most obvious of these being the overall structure and context of the letter as a whole. Also, though, the ultimate elect individual to whom Paul was seeking to draw the church’s attention toward was Jesus; a point which, in my understanding, is usually missed (or ignored) by the Reformed. His point was that the elect had been defined as those in Abraham, then, in Isaac, followed by in Jacob, and finally, in Christ. The passage’s elect individuals, then, represent the now (in light of the Christ event) opposing factions (corporate bodies) within Judaism who were laying claim to the title, God’s elect; was it those in Torah, or those in Christ, who were truly God’s representatives?

5. Paul sought to explain how the Christ event had redefined who was, and what it meant to be, the elect.

This point is essential for our understanding as well, because Paul was desirous to define the elect people in light of the Christ event; not to explain the historical outworking God’s predetermined plan to save certain individuals. God had elected Jesus, and therefore, only those Israelites (and Gentiles) who were united to Christ were to be considered part of the elect, regardless of their relationship to Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, or the Torah. It was those who walked in the righteous way of inclusion and suffering, modeled by Jesus in His faithfulness, whom Paul defined as the elect, as opposed to those Jews who practiced what Paul believed to have been the very exclusive and authoritarian way of the Torah.  In fact, the main reason for which He set out to explain the differences between the way of Christ and the way of Torah, and to point out the problems he viewed as having been inherent within Torah, was so that he might encourage the Jew/Gentile church to treat one another, as well as the Jesus rejecting Jews, in a manner consistent with God’s righteous desire and will as revealed in Jesus, and not in the hateful, divisive, and separatist manner presented in the Torah.

6. Election was intended as a means to an end; not an end in and of itself.

Paul was not as concerned as many in the Protestant tradition to equate election and salvation; as if to be elect automatically ensured someone’s salvation, or to be non-elect automatically ensured one’s damnation. The two themes were certainly related in his thought, but they were definitely not equivalent. Salvation, after all, was not limited to the elect alone. As with Abraham, election was to be God’s means of saving the world. The Jews alone, were at one time, God’s elect; but in Paul’s time, he considered the Jesus rejecting Jews to have been amongst the hardened, just like Pharaoh. God’s actions towards elect Israel (specifically their hardening) was the very means through which the non-elect Gentiles would be saved. Similarly, Paul hoped that God’s election of Gentiles in Christ would be the very means (through a provoking to jealousy) through which hardened Israel would experience salvation. For Paul, though the Christ event had redefined who the elect were, the mission of the elect had remained the same; to bring salvation to the non-elect.

6. Paul was entirely disinterested in the end of the world; wrath did not equal eternal conscious torment; nor did salvation equal heaven.

There is nothing within the entire letter to the Romans, which should make us conclude that Paul was equating wrath and judgment with eternal conscious torment, and salvation with going to heaven when you die. In Romans, I think that he was primarily concerned with the fate of people groups (specifically ethnic Jews), and the prospect of their continued existence and participation in the future history of this physical world. I do believe that, afar off in his mind, beyond his immediate concerns for the church at Rome and the Jewish people, was the salvation (specifically the continuation) of God’s creation project; the hope that through the witness of the elect followers of Jesus (beyond the period of the impending two-stage eschatological crisis which was on the horizon in Paul’s day) the world would flourish, and be filled with the glory of God, as He had intended from the beginning. In Romans, wrath and judgment are historical in nature, taking place through normal historical means, and salvation is from these historical judgments.

7. For Paul, the future was open, yet full of hope and assurance.

In Romans (and I would argue, in scripture) there is no basis, whatsoever, for assuming that the future has already been determined. The Reformed (as well as many non-Reformed) make use of the concept of election, in what I believe to be an illegitimate way, to prove that the God of the bible is omniscient, and thus, that the future is unalterable. A careful reading of Romans 9-11 will show otherwise. Paul was anxious to explain God’s will, workings, and desires, to the church at Rome, because He was confident that the success of God’s purpose in the world was intimately intertwined with the will, workings, and desires, of the elect people. In other words, in Romans 9-11, he was not giving a systematic explanation of an inevitable historical outworking of a decision made in eternity past with regard to the salvation of individuals; rather, He was seeking to explain the will, workings, and desires of God, to the church at Rome, in order to inspire trust and obedience in, and to, God, because they were the people through whom He had decided, and desired, to bring about the salvation of the entire creation, including the hardened ethnic Jews. God loved all people impartially, and the elect were to reflect the character and behavior of God in their lives, as they interacted with one another, and with those outside of Christ. Any understanding of Romans 9-11 that concludes (or even insinuates) that God is either unable, or unwilling, to bring salvation to the entire world, or that His love and salvation is only extended to a particular group of people, has completely perverted Paul’s agenda of encouragement and motivation. Paul clearly possessed a hope and assurance with regard to God and His purposes that it is impossible for someone who believes in omniscience to have.

Final thoughts on Romans 9-11.

So what can we conclude? Most importantly, Romans 9-11 tells us nothing at all about the fate of individuals after death. It does tell us much about the character and purpose of God, though. God chooses some, and hardens others; but He chooses some to save the hardened, so that the world might be saved; He even hardens some, so that others might be saved, and saves some, in order to make others jealous, so that they too might be saved; for God does not play favorites. Since God has determined to work out His plans for creation and redemption through human beings, it is essential that the elect operate, in their earthly dealings, in a manner entirely consistent with the love, mercy, and righteous purpose of God; and so, we must realize that our understanding of God’s purpose and character has a direct impact upon the way in which we live an interact within the world. Paul longed for the Roman church to have a heart for the hardened Jews as he, himself, did, for He believed that his heart was a reflection of God’s heart, and knew that we become like the God/god whom we worship. Paul intentionally leaves us with no wiggle room; we are to treat every single person as God would treat them, regardless of who they are or how they behave. I am confident that a belief in omniscience and/or determinism (even in a compatiblistic form) inevitably force us to conclude that God is either unwilling, or unable (or both), to accomplish His cosmic salvation, which unavoidably destroys our hope and our assurance, and ultimately, collapses the ground and foundation upon which Paul has carefully constructed his entire ethical argument in these chapters. I think that we have much to consider going forward.

Transformation And Transparency: Towards A More Personal Experience Of παλιγγενεσία

I have been writing on this blog for just short of one year now; mostly my own exegetical and theological musings. I have tried to remain focused on the biblical text a much as possible, and have sought to refrain from directly engaging in controversial discussions, and from speaking about my own personal experiences (for the most part). I have done this because, when I started the blog, it had only been approximately six months since I had gone through a major upheaval in my biblical and theological perspective, which resulted in my decision to remove myself from the deacon board, and from the membership, of my now former place of Christian fellowship. Until recently, I had felt that it would have been in bad taste to speak publicly about any issues which (rightly or wrongly) might have been viewed as a personal attack on those whom I formerly used to associate with in my previous church experience. Also, I was honestly rather hurt and angered because of the way in which the situation unfolded, and was quite certain that I would not have represented myself well at all, nor would I have treated certain others with the respect, dignity, and love that they deserved; in the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What I have been finding out, though, is that in trying to take a more indirect approach to some topics that have been controversial in my life (which are also some of the issues that I am currently the most fascinated by, and enthusiastic about), and in my attempts to speak somewhat vaguely in order to avoid what I had deemed to be unnecessary conflict, I have been inadvertently blunting much of the purpose and the passion that I had originally intended, and anticipated, to be the trademark attributes of παλιγγενεσία, when I first began writing here. So, I guess that I have come to a crossroads of sorts. I could continue on with business as usual, or I could begin to open up more about my own experiences and emotions, while simultaneously initiating a challenge against the ideas and assumptions, held by certain persons and groups of people, which I believe are harmful to the mutual good of both the Christian community, and our world as a whole. I am choosing to do the latter, fully recognizing my own infallibility, as well as the fact that my own presuppositions and reflections need to be challenged in a similar manner, so that I too might grow in wisdom, and as a human being in general.

I can’t promise that my performance will be perfect going forward, or that the issues I choose to tackle, and the personal testimony that I determine to reveal, will not incite anger or frustration in those who disagree, or in those who have known me previously, and who might have had different perspectives on certain past situations; but I do believe that it is time for me to open up more about the difficult issues that I struggle with, my own life experiences, and even with things that flat-out piss me off. I believe that I can handle myself somewhat more appropriately now (hopefully, and by God’s grace), since I am, at this point, almost a year and a half removed from the extreme spiritual, emotional, psychological, and even physical angst that was brought about during and through my “conversion” out of a conservative, white, American, neo-Puritan, fundamentalism. In dealing with issues that a much more controversial and personal, I hope that I am able to present myself as one who is struggling with what it is to love God and neighbor, and what it means to be a follower of Christ in the 21st century; and not as one who has all of the answers, even though I certainly have strong convictions with regard to numerous topics.

I understand that, by choosing to do this, I am opening myself up to critique, to difficult questions, and even to personal attacks; but I am trying to view all of that in a positive light, understanding that I have biases which need to be exposed, blind spots which need to be illuminated, and character flaws and weaknesses that God might choose to deal with through either honest or dishonest and spiteful criticism. If I remain quiet, and continue to interact on the blog at a more or less superficial level, I am confident that it will certainly be more difficult for you (the reader of this blog) to understand my perspective, and to perceive the lenses through which I am viewing the world, as well as the scriptures themselves. I hope to be as transparent as possible, so that my regular readers can have a more accurate vision of some of my own tradition and experiences which have undoubtedly had a profound impact upon my own understanding of the Christian faith and worldview. I believe that it will only be through open and honest conversation (even if what I say is viewed, by some, as offensive, mean-spirited, or even outright anti-Christian) that I (as well as those who interact with the ongoing conversation on this blog), will mature.

The Bible And The Postmodern World: Featuring N.T. Wright (2 Of 2)

This is the second talk which was given by N.T. Wright during the 2006 Hayward Lecture Series. In last week’s lecture, Dr. Wright helped us to realign ourselves with a biblical cosmology, in order that we might better understand the nature of the Apocalyptic language of the New Testament, and also understand how Apocalyptic can create a bridge into the post-modern conversation, while simultaneously clearing a path through the dismal and depressing problems and difficulties which tend to be inherent within post-modern thought. This week, he sought to explain the importance of imagination and aesthetics, from within the same biblical worldview with regard to space, time, and matter, in order that we might understand the role that these things might play, as we Christians seek to display the beauty of God’s creation, as well as beauty of the future of God’s creation in the present; and I assure, you, this lecture was as beautiful as the last one was brilliant! The picture in the upper left hand corner of this post is a work of art which Dr. Wright referenced in the video, which he believes (and I agree) is a premier example of the way in which art can reflect the co-existing, and paradoxical, ugliness and beauty of God’s creation; acknowledging the fallenness of the creature, as well as the beauty of creation, and our Christian hope for a better future, in light of the resurrection (but you will have to watch the lecture to figure out the what and why of the sculpture). There was a very helpful Q and R following the lecture also; be sure to check it out. There is a lot think about here, and I would like to know what you think…

The Subversive Prayer Of The Sons Of The Father: Introduction

Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.] (Matthew 6:9-13)

Talk about a misunderstood passage of scripture! Christians today are so used to hearing this prayer in the context of the liturgy, and in a universalized fashion, that we are hardly aware of the immediate context in which Jesus spoke these words, and thus, the meaning which they carried for Matthew’s first century audience. The Mosaic themes from the Exodus and Deuteronomy are evident, which once again draws our attention towards Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus as a new Moses; God’s appointed leader, who would guide Israel out of Egypt (the exile), and into the land of promise (the age to come). It comes to us in the middle of a dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees over who truly was sitting in the seat of Moses; and therefore, serves as a means of subverting the Pharisaic definition of the role and purpose of the elect in the mission of YHWH. It is Jesus’ expression of His understanding of the character and will of YHWH (the Father) for His people (the sons of God), which was to be reflected through the desires and behaviors of His people, as they interacted with one another, as well as with those beyond the borders of Israel. It is also an extremely subversive redefinition of Israel, which simultaneously expands and contracts the borders of the elect; extraordinarily inclusive, so that the exclusivist minded tend to exclude themselves. Finally, it is a word of promise for Israel, who was desperately in need of encouragement, in order that they might trust in YHWH’s provision and protection through this time of wilderness wandering.

We will inaugurate our discussion of what has traditionally been called the Lord’s prayer by examining the opening phrase, “Our Father”. From the very beginning, Jesus was attempting to subvert both the Pharisaic understanding of YHWH, and the Pharisaic definition of Israel. We must begin by remembering who it was, exactly, that Jesus was teaching to pray in this manner, which lets loose with the incredible, “Our Father”. It was the entire audience who stood before Him, which in Matthew’s narrative, was representative of the entire nation of Israel, without exception, and this certainly included the disciples of Jesus; a group comprised of many whom the Pharisees would have typically excluded from their own definition of Israel (such as tax collectors, prostitutes, and fisherman). The crowd also included (more than likely) some who would have been numbered amongst the party of the Pharisees themselves. Here, Jesus was no doubt broadening the Pharisaic definition of Israel to include people whom the Pharisees would have considered sinners; people whom they would have viewed as having been unfaithful to the covenant, those deemed beyond the borders of that covenant as defined by the boundary markers, and those who were considered accursed by YHWH Himself. As far as Jesus was concerned, covenant renewal was for all of Israel, not merely a select portion of it. In fact, even though He was surely opposed to the teaching of the Pharisees (which He believed would lead to the destruction of the nation of Israel), He was certainly not seeking to exclude the Pharisees from the blessing of covenant renewal.

The presence of Jesus in and amongst the nation of Israel was the initiating mark of the renewal of the covenant. It was the manifestation of the fact that YHWH had forgiven the former sins of the entire nation; for He was providing, for them, a way of escape through the impending period of eschatological crisis and judgment. Prior or current adherence to the covenant boundary markers was entirely insignificant, for at least three reasons. First, the boundary markers of the covenant had been perverted so horrendously that there was absolutely no reason to assume that those who obeyed them had any relation, whatsoever, to the righteous purposes of YHWH. Second, this act of renewal offered a fresh beginning for the nation; a calling and election that differed in no significant way from that of either Abraham or the Exodus generation. Third, the basis of this renewal was the free and unmerited love, mercy, and forgiveness of YHWH. God had chosen Israel, to begin with, not because they were the biggest, the best, the most powerful, or the most righteous; but because He loved them, and because He had a purpose in it; and the situation was no different now. Israel would not be forgiven, released from exile, and preserved from judgment (as the Pharisees were imagining) if, and only if, the people would once again hold fast to those external, and perverted, aspects of the covenant which marked out the boundaries between Israel and the Gentile sinners. There was, in fact, no need; for YHWH had chosen to generously forgive the entire nation of those sins which led them into exile freely, and apart from the Torah.

So, we can now see that a major problem with the Pharisaic definition of Israel was that it was limited to an exclusive group of people, within Israel; which meant that they believed that YHWH’s forgiveness would be limited merely to this smaller portion of Israelites. Jesus, on the other hand, was announcing that YHWH had freely forgiven all Israelites, regardless of their prior or current relationship to the Torah. I should point out then that, clearly, the Pharisees were not concerned with some sort of teaching which stated that one had to earn his way into heaven, in opposition to the supposed teaching of Jesus that he would be saved by faith alone. Rather, the Pharisees were teaching that YHWH’s forgiveness and deliverance from exile would be for those (alone) who had been deemed, by the Pharisaic party, to have maintained a faithful status within the covenant (through participation in the boundary markers; including all of that which was wrapped up with the Temple and sacrificial system), while Jesus believed that YHWH had already forgiven all Israelites as an act of free grace and pardon, completely apart from their relationship to the Torah, its boundary markers, and the Temple. A new covenant was being enacted through the new Moses, Jesus the Messiah; and this covenant was with the entire nation without distinction, as the first was. What was important now, though, was not one’s relationship to the boundary markers of the Torah, but rather, one’s relationship to Jesus. In other words, faithfulness to the covenant, and maintenance of one’s status within the forgiven community, was to be defined by the person and work of Jesus.

“Our Father”, then, was an extraordinarily subversive phrase, because Jesus was telling people whom the Pharisees would have believed had no ground whatsoever for claiming to possess a familial relationship with YHWH, to call Him Father! From the perspective of the Pharisees, the sinners whom Jesus associated with lived lives that had been entirely contrary to the character and purpose of YHWH. While the Pharisee’s assessment of Jesus’ disciples, as well as other sinners who might have been found amongst the crowds, was probably correct, they had clearly failed to recognize that any claim to sonship on their own part would have been equally as illegitimate. The entire nation of Israel had broken covenant with YHWH, which had effectively rendered their covenant relationship null and void. YHWH though, in His electing purpose, had chosen to renew His relationship with the nation of Israel, thus granting the status of sonship to all Israelites, in spite of the fact that the entire nation, as a corporate entity, had failed to fulfill, and had even rejected, their calling and election. Now, just because YHWH had forgiven the sins of the nation, and established a new covenant with Israel, that did not mean that they were without the responsibility to fulfill their role as sons of the Father. Jesus had already explained how it was that Israel might truly embody what it means to be sons of the Father in heaven (5:45), and in this prayer, He will continue to emphasize that theme. While election and forgiveness were not dependent upon the Israelites whatsoever (not even upon their faith!), these blessings were intended to provoke attitudes and behaviors, within Israel, which reflected the character and will of the Father; and there were dire consequences for those who refused to do so.

Kingdom Chronicles For The Week Ending 7/2/11

Tim Gombis continued to write brilliantly on the biblical concept of election, here, here (and especially!) here.

Joel Watts continued his review of Mark Galli’s response to Rob Bell’s “Love Wins”, “God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins”, here. Rodney Thomas Chimed in as well; here.

The Homebrewed Christianity podcast featured Mark Scandrette this week, and a discussion of his new book, “Practicing the way of Jesus”, here. Wow! Definitely listen to this…it was extremely encouraging. Mark is wrestling with issues that I am wrestling with, and that I need to continue to wrestle with; I think I might have to get the book.

Daniel Kirk comes clean: He admits that justification by “faith alone” is a heresy; and he is right! See why here.

This week, we will get back into our normal routine. After an excursion through some of the art of the Killah Priest, we will return to that sub-genre of Hip Hop known as the “Holy”..well, sort of …I guess it depends on one’s perspective. So much music has come out since we started looking at Priest’s work, including Tedashii’s, “Blacklight”, and brand new Lampmode artist, S.O.’s, “So it Begins” (which you can download for free (here). Also, be ready for a 116 clique (Lecrae, Trip Lee, Tedashii, and Sho Baraka) group album, “Man Up”, and This’l's, “Beautiful Monster”, both due out in July.

Plus, the newly formed label, High Society, promises mix tapes from Sho Baraka, Swoope, and Suzy Rock, all by the end of the summer! Basically, there will be a lot of good music coming. It was a tough decision for the song this week, but I decided to stay away from rap, and present a track off of the recently released, “Murray’s Grammar”, from High Society artist, J.R. (and I might have to show of a few tracks in a row from this album..it is real dope!). The song is entitled “Love”…breathe it in, and be refreshed! You can also download this album for free, here (give it about 40 seconds and the option for regular download will appear).

The Other Way With Walter Brueggemann: Lecture 6

This video features the sixth, and final, presentation in a series of lectures, given in late 2009, by Old Testament scholar Dr. Walter Brueggemann, at St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, in Cincinnati, Ohio. The series is entitled, “The Other Way”, and it is a discussion of themes from the book of Daniel (primarily), about how we, as Christians, can live out our lives in the midst of a pagan empire, without compromising our baptismal identity. The final subject in the series is prayer. Dr. Brueggemann defines prayer as “the ability to refer one’s self, and one’s life, to this wholly other one, to whom we are accountable, and from whom we seek transformity of gifts for life”. He then specifically contrasts the differences between the prayers of God’s people and the prayers of the empire; which are ultimately reflections of the God of Israel, and the gods of the empire. He also argues that Christian prayer is an actual conversation which occurs between two parties, and through which both parties are changed in one manner or another. This was a thoroughly refreshing and biblical teaching on prayer, and an outstanding closing lecture to a tremendous series.

Cosmic Re-Creation Part 11: Paul’s Hope That The Hardening Of Israel Would Lead To The Salvation Of Israel

We have now reached the conclusion of this section of Romans (chapter 11) and it no doubt presents some difficulties for many an interpreter. I have no intention of issuing a final word on this passage, but rather, I hope merely to point out some important clues, which I believe will lead us toward a faithful interpretation. Hopefully, after this brief look at Romans 9-11, we will come to see some of the ways in which a proper understanding of this passage will serve us, as we seek to answer the questions which sparked off this series; who is God, and what in the world is He doing? Our text today is long, but as I have been doing, I will lay it before us.

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;  just as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, Eyes to see not and ears to hear not, Down to this very day.” And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, And a stumbling block and a retribution to them. “Let their eyes be darkened to see not, And bend their backs forever.” I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” “This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

I think that the first thing that we need to remember is that Paul’s question throughout this entire 3 chapter section had to do with the fate of the Jews (who were rejecting Jesus), now that the elect of God had been reconstituted, from around the Torah, to around Jesus the Messiah. The goal, or climax, to which he was ultimately working was the answer to that particular question, which is found in verses 26 and 27, when Paul said, “and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.’” I realize that there are multiple interpretations with regard to who, exactly, Paul is referring to when he uses the phrase, “all Israel”, but I believe that the context demands that we understand him to be speaking of national Israel as a corporate entity. I think that we need to keep in our minds, though, that Paul was not speaking of some sort of end-of-the-world-final-judgment, and thus, he was not necessarily speaking of the bodily resurrection of every single Jew who ever has lived; it was simply not his interest at this juncture. As far as Paul was concerned, God was going to provide a continued existence, for the nation of Israel (which included those who were currently amongst the hardened) on the other side of the imminent two-stage judgment. Again, this has nothing to do with the afterlife. In fact, I believe that those who assume that the salvation which Paul speaks of in this passage refers to the afterlife will be doomed to confusion. If we keep ourselves grounded in history, I believe that a much clearer picture will emerge.

The second thing that we need to focus in on is the fact that Paul had in mind (I believe) two communities in conflict; the Jesus rejecting Jews, and the Jew/Gentile church. Yet, this portion of the letter was directed primarily at the Gentiles within the church, in order that they might understand how it was that God felt about the Jews, so that they would know how they should have been feeling and behaving towards those Jews both within and without their community. Paul goes to great lengths to ensure his readers that God had not cast off national Israel. He stated that he, himself, was a Jew; so God could not have cast off all Jews. Next, he appealed to the story of Elijah, making the claim that the Jesus accepting Jews constituted a remnant, similar to the 7000 in that story. Two times he asserted that Israel’s stumbling and/or hardening was not permanent; and that it was only partial. He stated that the stumbling/hardening of national Israel was the means through which the Gentiles were being saved, and then, he said that God saved the Gentiles in order to provoke the Jews to jealousy, so that they too might be saved! Also, he declared that God’s calling and gifting toward, and for, national Israel, would not be revoked, and that they were still beloved for the sake of the patriarchs, even though they were currently antagonistic towards the gospel. Finally, Paul stated that God had shut up the Jews (and the Gentiles) in disobedience (understood as equivalent to hardening/stumbling) in order that he might eventually show mercy to all; both Jew and Gentile. So, basically, as I have been saying all along, the hardening of national Israel was, in God’s plan, supposed to be the means through which that same national Israel would be saved, along with the Gentiles.

I could not finish writing about Romans 11 without touching on the theme of the olive tree and the branches, which is so prevalent in the chapter. The root of the olive tree, of course, was historic national Israel; no doubt beginning with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The natural branches were those Jews alive at the time of Paul’s ministry, and the wild branches were the Gentiles. Those Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah were those who were cut off from the cultivated olive tree, while the wild branches who were cut off from the wild olive tree, in order to be grafted in to the cultivated olive tree, were the Gentile Jesus followers. Paul appropriately affirmed the apparent Gentile assertion that the Jews had been cut off when the Gentiles were grafted in; but he reminded the Gentiles that they should not, themselves, be arrogant, and this for two reasons. First, because the root (Israel) supported the branches (Gentiles), and second, because God might have decided to cut them off, just as He had cut off the Jews; and for the same reasons; arrogance, conceit, and unbelief! The Jews who rejected Jesus (as we have said rather frequently in our examination) did so on the basis that they were entirely unwilling to accept Jesus’ teaching with regard to the Gentiles; who were to be accepted, as Gentiles, into the fellowship of God’s elect. The Jews were arrogant and conceited, believing that God had rejected the Gentiles in favor of them, and thus, were unbelieving of God’s promise to Abraham; that through him all of the nations of the earth would be blessed. Paul was declaring that any Gentiles who believed that God had cut off the Jews permanently, in favor of the Gentiles, were behaving in a way that was identical to that which was the reason for which the Jews had been cast off in the first place!

Paul exhorted the Gentile Christians to remain firmly connected to the root to which they were grafted (historic national Israel), so that they would not be cut off from the tree, as many Jews had been previously. Paul told them that, in order remain, they needed to act with unremitting kindness and mercy towards the unbelieving Jews; for this reflected God’s inclination towards them. They were to reflect a mercy and kindness identical to that which God had shown to the fathers (the root), as well as to the Gentiles currently. To put it simply, Paul wanted the Gentiles in Rome to have the same heart for the Christ rejecting Jews that he had had for his kinsmen according to the flesh. Also, he certainly did not want to see the Gentiles fall victim to the very mentality that eventually led to the cutting off of the natural branches; which was an attitude of superiority (over Israel), and a practice of exclusion (which meant that Jews would no longer be accepted, as Jews, into the fellowship of God’s elect). The Jew/Gentile church was chosen (just as the Jews had been) in order that they might make manifest the kindness and mercy of God in our fallen world; for Jew and Gentile alike. The Jews, for the most part, had failed in their mission; but would the Jew/Gentile church do any better? If they were going to succeed, they needed to fall in line with God’s universal reconciliatory purpose, which meant that they were going to have to understand God’s love for hardened Israel, and also become vessels of mercy, through whom God might reveal the glory of His mercy to those very Israelites who were currently preparing themselves for destruction, by rejecting God’s way of mercy and reconciliation that had been unveiled in Jesus. The fact that God desired to be merciful to all (Jew and Gentile alike), and the fact that he was able to do so (“for from Him and to Him and through Him are all things”), is what provoked Paul’s exuberant praise at the chapter’s conclusion.

The Bible And The Postmodern World: Featuring N.T. Wright (1 Of 2)

This talk was given by N.T. Wright during the 2006 Hayward Lecture Series. In it, he discusses the Apocalyptic language of the New Testament, which he believes can serve the dual purpose of forming a bridge between a biblical worldview and our post-modern world, while also offering a possible way through, and beyond, the confusion, anxiety, and fear that post-modernity can often provoke. For a couple of reasons, I must highly recommend this lecture. First of all, Dr. Wright does a fantastic job of summarizing the way in which Apocalyptic language works; giving clarification to this very misunderstood subject (misunderstood especially within American fundamentalism, and in the dispensationalist rapture mania theology which is also prevalent in the U.S.). Secondly, he corrects modern and enlightenment assumptions about eternity, time, and matter, by reconstructing a truly biblical worldview; which views eternity and time in a linear fashion (as opposed to seeing eternity as something a-historical, or as something outside of time), and by highlighting the fact that the resurrection affirms the goodness of matter, and thus, of the creation.