Showing posts with label Gospel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gospel. Show all posts

Friday, December 6, 2013

Unnamed Among the Named: Jesus and His Sisters

In a society that was, with some exception, patriarchal, it is intriguing to discover the biological family that Jesus found himself in. Lovely example include, "Women are greedy, inquisitive, lazy, vain." (Gen. Rab. 45b) and "woe to him whose children are females" (b. Qidd. 82b).

Mark 6:2-3:
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given to him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? Isn't this the carpenter? isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
There are some interesting elements of this text. First, Jesus is mentioned as being Mary's son instead of Joseph's. Jesus' genealogy is traced (largely) through men (Matt. 2-17). Curiously, Mary is mentioned again in v16 as the mother of Jesus. Joseph is simply named as her husband.

Second, the brothers are all named whereas the sister's go unnamed. This isn't too surprising, given the culture. You have many unnamed women in the synoptic gospels and in John (Mark 5:25-34; Luke 7:36-50; the famous interpolated text in John 7:53-8:11 as well as the Samaritan women in John 4).

Third, what I find most unique about this little stories is that they reflect not only the time in which they happened, but they reflect the idea of deed over name. What many of these women did, whether it was challenge Jesus, anoint Jesus, provide finances for Jesus, announce his resurrection and ascension; whatever they did, reconciliation seemed imminent.

Much of it is silent, unspoken. Jesus meets their gaze, and they respond. Much of his relationship is met with tenderness and quietness. In the still silent places, Jesus seems to connect with women. If Jesus had any imparted teaching of the law to women, he is in sharp contrast with a pretty standard comment in his century, "woman is not equal in honor with man" (Philo of Alexandria, QG 1.27).

I wonder what his relationship with his sisters was like. How did he play with them? Did he wrestle in the dirt? Did he race them around Mary's feet? Did he impart wisdom to them? Did he teach them the Law? Did he ever need to speak with them? Did he eat with them? Did he have them remove a splinter from his thumb?

Did he love them enough to remember them?

Some things that just crawled into my mind and haven't left. Jesus has a knack for doing that.

--Nick

Sunday, September 29, 2013

That Mourns in Lonely Exile: Ransom Theory in Christmas Music

O come o come emmanuel
And ransom captive israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the son of god appears


Last Saturday, Allison and I went to an American Baptist Women's conference in Pasadena. Besides hearing some marvelous women preach, I was significantly struck by the worship. A woman named Shanni Love got up and sang with minimal music, and her song was essentially a prayer set to song. I hadn't considered the nature of prayer and music together as one principle, and it was striking.

Oh come thou day-spring come and cheer
Our spirits by thine advent here
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death's dark shadows put to flight


It was a mixture of praise and lamentation, with eyes wide shut and heart wide open. To hear such adulation and loneliness set in the form of a prayer was just perfect. With that in mind, I did wonder if Protestants (like myself) tend to miss such things.

Oh come desire of nations bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid thou our sad divisions cease
And be thyself our king of peace


Worship is theology set to music, and Christmas music is the Karl Barth of systematics.

O Come O Come Emmanuel is pure Gospel theology. The future of Israel, coupled with the pessimism of the prophets and the hope of Messiah, wrapped up in rejoicing.

O come o come emmanuel
And ransom captive israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the son of god appear


Beginning with the ransom of Israel, we are already within the first century, living in continuity with a captive nation, a nation underneath the god of Rome. Oppression is currency and Israel is again bankrupt.

Oh come desire of nations bind
In one the hearts of all mankind
Bid thou our sad divisions cease
And be thyself our king of peace


Women and men were waiting for the deliverance of their nation, waiting for the installment of Psalm 110, the most frequently cited First Testament passage in the New Testament. Greg Boyd states that this text "is used to express the truth that Christ is Lord because he has defeated God's enemies" (1).

This first century world was waiting to be put beneath the feet of God. During this Second Temple time, you have the writings of Qumran, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. These writings are full of despair, anger, satire and vengeance.

Israel is in need to liberation, of deliverance, and this song captures this spirit perfectly. The hope of Messiah is lingering, pervasive, and pregnant with possibilities. Given that we no longer live in this world, it is often difficult to picture and sense how such things were. But, thankfully, we have songs that linger and penetrate.

He's coming towards us now
He's coming towards us now
He's coming towards us now
He always will


The coming of God was an earthy historical reality that completely rerouted everything anyone anticipated. We have already been ransomed and liberated from bondage. Rejoice, rejoice.

--Nick

Footnote:

Gregory A. Boyd, Four Views of the Atonement, 31.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

The Explicit Gospel, a review

THE EXPLICIT GOSPEL

By Matt Chandler and Jared Wilson

PRELUDE

Simply put, Matt Chandler and Jared Wilson see that Christendom has lost it's way in regards to the Gospel, and have assumed it. Their attack is on "moralistic therapeutic Deism" that is rampant in both mainline protestantism as well as within evangelicalism's back yard. The Explicit Gospel sets out to aim our sights back to the original gospel and to a right relationship with it.

STRENGTHS

This is more of a concession on my part, but I don't care for the writing style of Chandler and Wilson. This is, however, a strength because it will work for most who pick up this book. It is robust, blunt and often intentionally provocative. While I prefer works that are more subtle and indirect, The Explicit Gospel to it's credit deserve praise in this area.

Chandler and Wilson marshal some ample biblical evidence in support of their conclusions about the gospel of the ground and of the air. Though they don't quite delve into the meaty areas they bring up (this is a more popular work), their use of Scripture is generally solid and makes some great distinction between both ground and air.

This book strives for practicality and however it works or doesn't work, praise should be offered for attempting to take lofty themes and make them physically feasible.

They also quote N.T. Wright, which is a nice gesture across the aisle. I wish thy had done this more consistently, but like I said, praise is necessary when gestures are made.

WEAKNESSES

I took the chance to listen to Matt's sermons before reading this, and found them to be largely tangental. This is not necessarily a weakness in a sermon, but The Explicit Gospel seems to meander quite a bit as stories are brought up that only vaguely resemble the original thesis.

Chandler and Wilson also take a lot of potshots at those they disagree with, and often they overstep their bounds. In one section, they insinuate that Christians who believe in evolution are doing so to keep their jobs. One could reverse the claim that Chandler and Wilson are doing that same in defending "historic creationism" as I doubt most pastors would be allowed by their denominations and congregations to openly support evolution. This seems to be a short sight on the parts of Matt and Jared.

I do not think these potshots are merited in the manner of which they are asserted. This also happens with their treatment of egalitarians in an appendix, as cultural conditioning is assumed on their part, and no Scripture is cited to support their thoughts. Essentially, these tangents are polemic and seem far more reactionary than needed.

A final weakness, for me, is indeed something I mentioned in the strengths and that is the style of writing. If it works for others, great. However, much of the book read as an extended series of blog posts, and I do wonder if that would've been a better way to approach the issue, as it allows for the authors and readers to dialogue more on these weighty subjects.

CONCLUSION

Chandler and Wilson, despite their slip-ups in regards to their handling of the secondary issues held to be other Christians, deserve praise for writing a popular and passionate defense of their interpretation of the Gospel. In the grand scheme of things, it works quite well. It is concise and not without many wonderful positives. However, the noted flaws and tangents do detract quite a bit, and the rhetoric often devolves into unnecessary polemics. Worth your time (especially if you want a more Reformed view of the Gospel), but most certainly not perfect.

3 out of 5.

--Nick

Saturday, May 4, 2013

(Maybe) My Favorite Sentence Summary of Scripture

The one true god of an obscure and cantankerous Middle Eastern people eventually, after numerous set backs and no small amount of suffering on the part of that people, overcomes the pagan empires that conspired against him for so long --

-- and the rest is history(1).


--Andrew Perriman
Thoughts?

--Nick

Footnote:

Hell and Heaven in Narrative Perspective, Loc56 (kindle)

Monday, March 25, 2013

Beyond A Gate Called Beautiful

My favorite gospel is undoubtedly Mark, because of its narrative structure and the author's knack for understatement. However, I came across a line from the book of Acts, chapter 3 that stuck out to me.
1 One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. 2 Now a man who was lame from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money.
At the Temple Gate called Beautiful. I wonder what was going through Luke's mind when this was written, or when someone told him this story. Imagine Luke hearing this from an eyewitness, or from Saint Peter over drinks.

"Where did this miraculous experience happen?"

"Y'know, by the temple gate called beautiful."

I do doubt that was the gate's title, but being as Luke is fond of this type of rhetoric, I love it. But imagine this dusty outsider, stuck outside the temple, carried so close and yet removed so far.

In some ways, I wonder if this beggar was closer to God than he realized. He likely didn't know of propitiation or hell or whatever went on in the temple beyond the gate. What is more likely, this was a curse from God upon him. In a way, people carrying him that far were doing him a favor that was unnecessary. God had cursed him from birth.

There was nothing more to be done for him, but to leave him outside God's presence.

Peter didn't give the man his legs or even a sense of renewal. In fact, I do wonder if Peter had simply plucked the beggar from the ground and carried him beyond the beautiful gate if Peter would've achieved something marvelous.

But why stop at marvelous when you can have something truly unique and beautiful?

The man was not only given physical healing, but a true sense of wholeness. He was seen as included to be ushered into God's presence. Image that, being on the outside, hearing whispers about your confessions to YHWH, but being cascaded outside beyond stone and silk.

The beggar probably begged again, but he doubtlessly never begged for YHWH to be near him.

--Nick

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Evangelicals and the "New" Fundamentalism

As per usual, Brandan offers up an incisive critique of the new fundamentalism, broadly defined as Mark Driscoll and others involved in the Reformed movement. He offers the following definition of what fundamentalism is. Before I comment on this, I want to emphasize that I think I more or less agree with him. We had a wonderful little back and forth a while back so I enjoyed his post a lot.

Robertson:
"Fundamentalism was a movement that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries within American Protestantism reacting against “modernist” theology and biblical criticism as well as changes in the nation’s cultural and social scene... During the 1920s, fundamentalists waged a war against modernism in three ways: by (unsuccessfully) attempting to regain control of Protestant denominations, mission boards, and seminaries; by supporting (with mixed success) Prohibition, Sunday “blue laws,” and other measures defending traditional Protestant morality and sensibilities; and (fairly successfully) by attempting to stop the teaching of evolution in the public schools." (Wheaton ISAE)
To expand upon the movement itself, Fundamentalism has generally accepted the following list of theological propositions:
  • The inerrancy of the Bible
  • The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account.
  • The Virgin Birth of Christ
  • The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
  • The penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
 Before I add more of what Brandan wrote, I want to respond a bit to this. I think fundamentalism (1920s and so one) arose out of the modernist controversy, spearheaded by multiple fronts: 'errors' in Scripture, archeology and evolution. The split from Princeton (done by J. Gresham Machen and others) was seen specifically as a reaction to these issues. Whereas folk like B.B. Warfield accommodated the threats and worked to adapt theologically.

This was seen by many as apostacy and evangelicalism ever since has been working out it's faith with much fear and trembling. Fuller Seminary worked within this controversy to find a third way, and it looks like they have succeeded.

Here we get to the meat of Brandan's response. He writes:
So what are your thoughts? Is New Fundamentalism truly a new movement? Let me know!
Frankly, no.

I don't think Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson or the Gospel Coalition are saying anything new within fundamentalism (and I only use those names because they are easily recognized, not because I'm currently on an anti-Driscoll binge). I don't think this fundamentalism is new simply because they aren't saying anything new. Dress up a puppy dog in jeans and give him a faux-hawk and he's still a puppy dog.

Much of what the current fundamentalists (which could be considered evangelical but I'm not certain they really want the label) are saying is primarily sectarian. Case in point, see Rob Bell. The difference between much of fundamentalism, both classic and modern, is primarily superficial. Carson and Driscoll emphasize gender roles and eternal conscious torment just as much as John Calvin, John Rice and others.

Allow me to conclude that I could be wrong. From my research, there are nuances to be sure but by and large much is what is written and said by Driscoll and others falls directly in line with the fundamentalism in the modernist controversy. I wouldn't call this the "new" fundamentalism simply because, to my knowledge, it isn't "new."

--Nick

Saturday, January 26, 2013

A Solution to the Synoptic Problem?

The Gospel of Mark was the first draft of a doctoral candidate’s dissertation. He submitted it to his advisor who suggested the need for more background information about Jesus’ birth, maybe some more teaching material, and a stronger ending.

The student rewrote his dissertation and submitted the Gospel of Matthew.

His advisor thought the revision was much stronger but felt that the teaching material should be better integrated into the narrative, thought a story about Jesus’ youth might be helpful, and suggested that the genealogy could be expanded back to Adam, etc.

The PhD candidate did another major revision and produced the Gospel of Luke. Once again the advisor was critical and asked for major revisions.

Frustrated, the student took drugs and wrote the Gospel of John.
According to Jordan Scharf here.

--Nick

Saturday, September 1, 2012

The Gospel in Seven Words

I figure I like a challenge. Many folk seem to have an odd view of the gospel, viewing it purely in terms of love or grace or penal substitution. I think these inadequate, so I'm going to do something about it in seven words or less.

So here it goes:

The empty tomb trumps your gospel.

Or:

Having died and rise, Jesus conquers death.

Or even better:

God will be All in All.

Or:

The gathering of all things in Christ. 

What is your definition in seven of less words?

--Nick

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Dave Williams, "The Gospel According to the Gospel" Part I

Williams:
If you Google the phrase “What is the gospel?” you will find a spate of links with precisely that title ready to unpack the contents of…of…the gospel?  Well, maybe.  But I’m not so sure.

Most of these sites are sponsored by high profile Evangelical organizations particularly of the Neo-Reformed camp and offer as their account of the gospel what is, properly speaking, the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith, i.e., justification sola fide (by faith alone).  So, for instance, on the Resurgence’s “What is the Gospel?” page, between the headings Jesus Died and Jesus Rose is the heading Jesus Exchanged, invoking the Reformation idea of dual forensic imputation: Our sin imputed to Jesus and Jesus’s righteousness imputed to us.  They write:
Jesus not only took the punishment for your sin, but he also lived a perfectly righteous life. When you trust in Christ, your sins are forgiven and you are declared righteous by God, the ultimate judge. The righteousness of Christ is attributed to you as if you lived a perfect life.
Similarly, on the Ligonier ministries “What is the Gospel?” page R.C. Sproul tells us:
The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.
And I know of at least one local pastor whose slogan-like summary of the gospel is “Christ in my place.”  Throughout this post I have embedded videos of prominent evangelical leaders more or less equating the gospel itself with the doctrine of justification sola fide and they are worth watching if you aren’t sure you know what I am talking about.

To be sure, the identification of Luther’s doctrine of justification with the gospel itself has been a mainstay of conservative Protestantism from the Reformation onward, and so none of this is all that surprising.  But, surprising or not, is it right?  Is this idea of “Christ in my place,” this idea that we are justified by faith alone really what the apostles and the early Church had in mind when they talked about the euangelion, the “good news,” the gospel?

It would be hard to overplay the importance of this question.  If one identifies the gospel with the doctrine of justification sola fide, then, by implication, one has to say that only (some) Protestants believe in the gospel.  Not only does this equation require one to automatically put contemporary Catholics, Orthodox, and many other Christians in the “unbeliever” box, it also means putting everyone from the 1st century to the 16th–Ignatius, Irenaeus, Basil, Thomas a Kempis, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc.–in that box as well.  Most of the spiritual greats of Christian history–the Church Fathers and Mothers, the Medieval doctors, the great mystics–are all cast outside.  To my mind, this implication alone is sufficient to warrant a reconsideration of the evangelical equation of the gospel with Luther’s doctrine of justification.

Let me be clear, my purpose here is not to dispute the truth of the doctrine of justification sola fide (detailed exegetical questions aside, I think Luther was more right than wrong on this issue) but only the strict equation of that doctrine with the gospel itself.  Over the last seven years I have become increasingly convinced that the message which the apostles proclaimed as “the gospel” was not sola fide but Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.”  That is to say, the gospel is, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth is the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.  Over the next few posts I’d like to offer some of the reasons for just why I think that is:

1.  The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways.  Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along one or the other of those lines.   Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. 
For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

McKnight, "Campbell & The New Perspective Revised"

McKnight:

In Mike Bird’s new book, The Apostle Paul, there are four views of Paul: the Reformed view by Tom Schreiner, the Catholic view by L.T. Johnson, the post New Perspective view by Douglas Campbell, and the Jewish view of Mark Nanos. Today’s post will look at Campbell’s piece.

What do you see as the major problems with the traditional reading of Paul? What do you see as the major problems with the New Perspective on Paul? Do you think Campbell’s reading helps us forward?

In essence, and Campbell gets this right when many don’t, the core of the New Perspective is a new view of Judaism and a new view of Paul rooted in that new view of Judaism. The “old” perspective on Paul, it is argued, overcooked Judaism into a works-based religion. This led to religion being man’s attempt to justify himself, and the whole gospel of Paul was read as a response to this fundamental anthropological pride. Hence, we read in folks like Tim Keller of two options: 

performance vs. grace/faith. 

I see this all over, so Keller’s not alone. The New Perspective calls this into question because it argues that “performance” stuff emerges from a view of Judaism and from a Judaism Paul was opposing.

Campbell, however, goes beyond anything being said by the New Perspective, though he agrees completely with its view of Judaism. He thinks the New Perspective explanations of Paul — Dunn, Wright, oddly not really dealing with Sanders — are not good enough and so he revises those explanations. I would say he radically revises.
For the entire review, enjoy it

--Nick

Friday, August 10, 2012

The Open Future, The 1000 Year Reign & The Inclusive Nature of Book Reading

Well, several topics have come up on my radar, and I finally have the preliminary resources to research them. I'm more or less done discussing women in ministry (though I have a year long discussion with a friend that I hope ends with one of us converting) and I'm simply weary of the debate.

So, I've decided to hop onto a train that has already set sail. Open theism. I'm currently staring at a copy of The Openness of God by Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and others. I'm told, as far as anthologies go, this is the best (maybe only?) one. This also includes Greg Boyd's The Openness of God, which I'm excited for.

I'm also working through Allah by Miroslav Volf and finding it quite compelling. I'm also planning a review of Matt Chandler's The Explicit Gospel. The "gospel" as a nebulous term is something I'm interested in. I want to grab Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel as another perspective.

So, expect wrestling over open theism, gospel and perhaps universalism. I wish I could afford Tom Greggs' book Origen, Barth and Universal Salvation, All Shall be Well by Robin Parry and Eric Reitan's God's Final Victory. But, I shall make do. I have Robin Parry's The Evangelical Universalist 2nd Edition and The One Purpose of God by Jan Bonda.

I'm also curious about the debate amongst amillenialists and others. Any (cheapish) books anyone can recommend would be cool. I lean amil, but not in any strong sense.

Open Theism. Universalism. Gospel. Amillenialism. In this is included the perennial debate amongst restrictivists, exclusivists, inclusivists, pluralists and universalists.

So it should be fun. And that is rooibus tea with a base of carved whole limes and chamomile. I wish it was beer. Almost.

--Nick

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Peter Enns Interview, "Young Evangelicals"

The Christian Post:
Theologian Peter Enns believes that some – mostly young, evangelical Christians today – want to rethink what it means to be evangelical but the movement's leaders are resistant to talking about the issues for fear of repercussions.
"People within evangelicalism desperately want to question the very foundations that made evangelicalism what it is, which is, basically, defending the faith, defending the Bible against the bad guys," Enns told The Christian Post in an interview at the Pastorum Live Conference hosted by Logos Bible Software earlier this month.
The Bible raises some difficult issues that these young evangelicals want to talk about, he said. But some "old guard" evangelicals make it difficult to have those conversations. These younger evangelicals don't want to leave evangelicalism, but they want to maintain their evangelical identity while transforming it.

"What they're saying is what some of the bad guys say about the Bible makes sense, whether its evolution, whether it's Canaanite genocide, whether it's human sexuality, whatever. They're saying they want to rethink some of those issues, but they're doing it from the point of view of having a deep connection with the tradition they were raised in. They don't want to just leave it. ... They want to transform and continue the evangelical journey," Enns said.

The biblical studies professor at Eastern University in Philadelphia, Pa., said he has spoken to many fellow theologians who wanted to also address some of the issues that are presenting challenges to evangelical thought, but did not for fear of losing their job.

"I should keep a list of the people I've talked to over the years who were like, 'I'd like to talk about X, but I can't because I'd be in trouble,' because it's all about protecting the system and it's not about saying, 'hey, that's a good point, let's talk about it,'" Enns said.
For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Monday, June 11, 2012

Williams, "Chicken Little Christianity"

Williams:
I am always amazed at how quick we often are to sound the “The Gospel is at Stake” alarm.  We evangelicals sometimes act like a flock of Chicken Littles, running around like we’ve lost our heads squawking, “The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!  The gospel’s at stake!  The sky is falling!” at even the slightest rattling of our little hen-house of a subculture.  We could save ourselves a lot of grief by remembering the centrality and priority of the resurrection and by putting everything else in (that) perspective.

I am reminded of George W. Ramsey’s question, “If Jericho Was Not Razed, Is Our Faith in Vain?”  The fact that the archaeological evidence in Palestine does not match up well with the narrative of the conquest in the Book of Joshua (which itself does not match up well with the Book of Judges) has been an endless source of anxiety for evangelicals who have kept up with such issues.  I think one of the most salubrious theological habits I have adopted over the last few years  while engaging these sorts of issues has been that of always asking myself, “Whichever way this question shakes out, will it change the fact that Jesus is risen?”  If not, then I can calm down, take a deep breath, and move forward with openness and honesty in the confidence that the gospel itself is just not at stake here.  To my mind, there’s simply no reason to think that if Joshua’s narrative of the destruction of Jericho is somewhat unhistorical, then Jesus must therefore be moldering in His tomb.  And if it is still the case that Jesus is risen, then our hope is intact, whatever the case may be with Jericho.  So, to Ramsey’s question we may resolutely, confidently, and even lightheartedly answer “No!”

So ask yourself:  If it turned out that Jesus is risen but Darwin was right about human origins after all, would you give up your faith?  If it turned out that Jesus was risen but Protestantism was wrong and Catholicism or Orthodoxy was right (or the other way around), would you opt to become an atheist?  If it turned out that Jesus is risen and that the New Perspective is more right than wrong about Paul, would that be grounds to abandon Christianity altogether?  If it turned out that Jesus is risen but the doctrine of predestination is true (or false!), would you see no more point in following Christ?  If it turned out that Jesus is risen but Genesis 1-11 is ancient Near Eastern mythology, would you apostasy?  If it turned out that Jesus is risen but Mark and Luke made historical slips here and there and Jonah was actually a non-historical children’s story, would your faith be in vain?

Here’s the kicker: If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, not only are you needlessly worrying yourself over secondary matters, you may have adopted “another gospel.”
For the entire link, click HERE.

--Nick

Friday, June 8, 2012

McKnight, "When is the Gospel at Stake?"

McKnight:
I’m bouncing off a post that claims too many Christians are Chicken Littles because they run around claiming and worrying and showing their faithfulness by saying the sky is falling down all the time. That is, they think the gospel is at stake in every conversation.

Deny inerrancy? The gospel is at stake. Deny the KJV/ESV, accept the TNIV/NIV? The gospel is at stake. Deny penal substitution? The gospel is at stake. Deny the real presence? The gospel is at stake. Deny the centrality of justification by faith? The gospel is at stake. Deny Athanasius or Augustine or Luther or Calvin or Edwards or Wesley? The gospel is at stake. Enough already.

The gospel is at stake when central themes of the gospel — as defined by the New Testament, that is by Jesus and the apostles — are denied. At the core of the gospel is Jesus as Messiah/King and Lord. The central question of the gospel is Who is Jesus? not What is my theory of salvation?

As I have sketched in The King Jesus Gospel, here are the central themes of the gospel and I will connect this to 1 Corinthians 15:1-28.
For the rest, and McKnight's four points, click HERE.

--Nick

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

TCM, "Heresy Hunting"

I had the pleasure of being involved in a podcast on heresy hunting. Ya'll should listen and give me some thoughts. We go from orthodoxy to gospel to heresy back to orthodoxy. Its long but worth it, I think.

The Christian Manifesto/Heresy

--Nick

Summarizing the Gospel in One Word:


Liberation. 

In a sentence:

Liberation from the wages of sin, which results in life instead of death. 

What about you?

--Nick

Thursday, April 19, 2012

NPR, "Was Jesus for Small Government?"

What would Jesus do with the U.S. economy?


That's a matter of fierce debate among Christians — with conservatives promoting a small-government Jesus and liberals seeing Jesus as an advocate for the poor.
After the House passed its budget last month, liberal religious leaders said the Republican plan, which lowered taxes and cut services to the poor, was an affront to the Gospel — and particularly Jesus' command to care for the poor.
Not so, says Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee. He told Christian Broadcasting Network last week that it was his Catholic faith that helped shape the budget plan. In his view, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity suggests the government should have little role in helping the poor.
"Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good," Ryan said.
Through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that's how we advance the common good.
The best thing that government can do, he said, is get out of the way.
But Stephen Schneck, a political scientist at Catholic University, says he thinks Ryan is "completely missing the boat and not understanding the real heart, the real core, of Catholic social teaching."
Schneck says Catholicism sees everyone as part of a mystical body, serving one another. True, the New Testament does not specifically speak to the government's role. "But charities and individuals and churches can't do it all," Schneck says. "When charities are already stretched to their limit, Catholic social teaching expects the state to step up and to fill that gap."
God And Government
Peter Montgomery at People for the American Way says conservative evangelicals have been arguing for years that the Bible favors a free-market system. But since President Obama was elected, he says, they have shifted into high gear.
"They are finding biblical justification for opposition to progressive taxation, opposition to unions and collective bargaining, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition even to social welfare spending and Social Security," he says.
Because, in their view, he says, God intends the government to have a minimal role in society. You hear echoes of that from megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who was asked about the budget recently on ABC's This Week.
They are finding biblical justification for opposition to progressive taxation, opposition to unions and collective bargaining, opposition to the minimum wage, opposition even to social welfare spending and Social Security.
"The primary purpose of government is to keep the peace, protect the citizens, provide opportunity," Warren said. "And when we start getting into all kinds of other things, I think we invite greater control. And I'm fundamentally about freedom."
Evangelicals cite the book of Romans, which is one of only a few places in the New Testament that refer to civil government. Then there's the conservative resistance to taxation, which some say violates the Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal."
Richard Land at the Southern Baptist Convention says of course Jesus paid his taxes and advised followers to do the same. But, he says, "the Bible tells us that socialism and neosocialism never worked. Confiscatory tax rates never work."
The Bible never mentions socialism, obviously, but Land says the whole of Scripture says that people are sinful and selfish and, therefore, "people aren't going to work very hard and very productively unless they get to keep a substantial portion of that which they make for them and for their families."
Does The Bible Promote Capitalism?
For other religious conservatives, the Bible is a blueprint for robust capitalism. Recently, on his radio program WallBuilders, David Barton and a guest discussed Jesus' parable of the vineyard owner. In it, the owner pays the worker he hires at the end of the day the same wage as he pays the one who begins work in the morning. Many theologians have long interpreted this as God's grace being available right up to the last minute, but Barton sees the parable as a bar to collective bargaining.
"Where were unions in all this? The contract is between an employer and an employee. It's not between a group," Barton said. "He went out and hired individually the guys he wanted to work."
Schneck says many Christians would not recognize this Gospel — and he says there are more biblical verses about feeding the hungry and taking care of the least fortunate. Schneck agrees that the Bible encourages initiative and hard work. But he says theologians through the ages have said there must be a balance.
"Pope after pope after pope argued that we're called to be more than market creatures. We're called, in fact, to always bear in mind the common good and our responsibilities to others," he says.
But we can probably expect both parties to claim Jesus as their favorite economist in the months to come.