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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.