Hey everyone!
This is Rod from the blog former known as Echomen Elpida which used to be Black Trinitarian Theology. After months of debating within myself and with others about the advantages of WordPress, I finally gave in. I will never give in to Twitter so just forget about that Rob! This blog is in homage to the works of John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas., who both believe that the Church is God’s political activity in the world and that the stories of Israel and Jesus inform humanity of a God of nonresistant love, a God who persuades us, the people of God, to live in truth, faithfulness, and nonviolent resistant.
Introducing Political Jesus!
Political Jesus Blog
Jul 1, 2009
Jun 12, 2009
Only God Can Judge Me?: A sermon on judgment in the Gospel of John
For my Johannine Literature course, I wrote a sermon for my final paper. The difficulty was incorporating my knowledge of the original Greek into the sermon and explaining what it meant for today's culture. So, the cultural references in this sermon include: The Simpsons, the movie Equilibrium, a track by Tupac Shakur, and the fundamentalists who drop off those annoying Chick tracts. Scriptural traditions I referenced were: the Bodily Resurrection, the Son of Man traditions, and the idea of God as Parent in the Gospel of John as well as Second Temple Jewish literature.
Only God Can Judge Me?
Only God Can Judge Me?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer on Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century
I have been meaning for the last month or so to address the rise of anti-Semitism taking place here in the United States. As a Christian dedicated to nonviolent resistance and anti-racism movements, one would be left to wonder why I have not fallen into deep despair over recent events. I see a pattern, whether it is the mainstream media showing only positive stories of the terrorist organization Hamas in Palestine or whether it is Jewish professors in academic setting being silenced because they exposed the hidden history of anti-Semitism in early and current Protestant liberalism. Last month, The United Nations Conference on Racism actually became the UN conference against the nation of Israel and Judaism. Just this week, Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright blames the Jews for keeping President Barack Obama away from him. The recent shooting shooting at a Holocaust museum proves that violence against Jews here in the United States is a symptom of an anti-Semitism that has yet to be confronted in American culture.
The problems lies with the North American church which struggles with not only the history of racism in the United States, but also the anti-Semitic history of both here in the U.S.A. and the history of the Church universal (oh, say, the Crusades and the Holocaust, for instance). Many Christians in the ecumenical circles try to whitewash over the differences between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam claiming that these are the three great Abrahamic faiths and that really, as monotheistic religions founded upon different prophets, we should all just get along and not even address histories of racial violence and real theological differences. But there is a problem with this approach: difference is viewed as PROBLEMATIC! On the other side of the coin, some in evangelical circles have particular readings of the New Testament in which the Church REPLACES Israel as God’s chosen people. This conclusion can only be drawn if one first presupposes that it is necessary to read the New Testament into the “Old” Testament. The Old Testament, then, and therefore the Jewish Scriptures, are viewed as not being a source of revelation with its own history and integrity outside of the Christian tradition. Thus, when Barack Obama and James Dobson argue over certain passages in Leviticus , we could hear Christian leaders on Fox News claiming that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount SUPERCEDES the Jewish law.
UNIVERSALISM nor SUPERCESSIONISM are proper options to addressing the current predicaments faced by many North American Jews or the people of Israel. The church should look for a theological answer in the tradition of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the leaders of the Confessing Church movement during Nazi Germany. In one of the documents he helped to author, the Bethel Confession, protested against the Aryan Clause that the German Christians were trying to enforce in churches, having segregated church services for Jewish Christians, etc., etc. It is important to note, that even though Bonhoeffer says that the Church living among all nations takes the place of the Old Testament people of the covenant, it is a theological argument against a NATION-STATE (Germany of the Third Reich) which claimed to be the new Israel. In Bonhoeffer’s European context, state churches still held sway over and against free churches. The freedom of conscience was a foreign idea. Notions God’s faithfulness and our faithful response are the keys to understanding Bonhoeffer’s political theology; this requires living out the biblical narrative of God’s suffering love in solidarity with victims. Christian support for Israel should not be a blind, uncritical love affair, but grounded in the recognition of God’s faithfulness in the story of Israel and Jesus the Messiah.
“God abundantly shows God’s faithfulness by still keeping faith with Israel after the flesh, from whom was born Christ after the flesh, despite all their unfaithfulness, even after the crucifixion. It is God’s will to complete the salvation of the world, which began with the election of Israel, through these selfsame Jews (Romans 9-11). Therefore God continues to preserve a ‘holy remnant of Israel after the flesh, which can neither be absorbed into another nation by emancipation and assimilation, nor become one nation among others as a result of the efforts of Zionist and other similar movements, nor be exterminated by Pharaoh-like measures. […]
No nation can ever be commissioned to avenge on the Jews the murder at Golgotha. ‘Vengeance is mine, says the LORD.’ (Deuteronomy 32:35, Hebrews 10:30). We reject any attempt to misuse the miracle of God’s especial faithfulness toward Israel after the flesh as an indication of the religious significance of the Jewish people or of another people. […] The special element in the Jewish Christians does not lie in their race or their character or their history, but in God’s special faithfulness toward Israel after the flesh and in that alone. The way in which the Jewish Christians have a special position in the church which is not based on any legal ruling in itself makes them a living memorial of God’s faithfulness with the church and is a sign that the barrier between Jew and Gentile has been broken down and that faith in Christ may not be perverted into a national religion or a racially determined Christianity. It is the task of the Christians who come from the Gentile world to expose themselves to persecution rather than to surrender, willingly or unwillingly, even in one respect, their kinship with Jewish Christians in the church, founded on Word and Sacrament.” (Bonhoeffer, 136-137)
In other words, the Christian response to the anti-Semitism should not a joining in of the chorus of liberal and conservative antipathy towards the story of the Jews, but a joining in solidarity with those being persecuted. The cross of Christ, the historical revelation of God's complete and unalterable faithfulfness, deserves no other.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Geffrey B. Kelly, and F. Burton Nelson. A Testament to Freedom : The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Rev. ed. [San Francisco, Calif.]: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995.
UPDATE: NPR COMMENTARY ON ANTI-SEMITISM-- COMMENTARY
The problems lies with the North American church which struggles with not only the history of racism in the United States, but also the anti-Semitic history of both here in the U.S.A. and the history of the Church universal (oh, say, the Crusades and the Holocaust, for instance). Many Christians in the ecumenical circles try to whitewash over the differences between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam claiming that these are the three great Abrahamic faiths and that really, as monotheistic religions founded upon different prophets, we should all just get along and not even address histories of racial violence and real theological differences. But there is a problem with this approach: difference is viewed as PROBLEMATIC! On the other side of the coin, some in evangelical circles have particular readings of the New Testament in which the Church REPLACES Israel as God’s chosen people. This conclusion can only be drawn if one first presupposes that it is necessary to read the New Testament into the “Old” Testament. The Old Testament, then, and therefore the Jewish Scriptures, are viewed as not being a source of revelation with its own history and integrity outside of the Christian tradition. Thus, when Barack Obama and James Dobson argue over certain passages in Leviticus , we could hear Christian leaders on Fox News claiming that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount SUPERCEDES the Jewish law.
UNIVERSALISM nor SUPERCESSIONISM are proper options to addressing the current predicaments faced by many North American Jews or the people of Israel. The church should look for a theological answer in the tradition of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the leaders of the Confessing Church movement during Nazi Germany. In one of the documents he helped to author, the Bethel Confession, protested against the Aryan Clause that the German Christians were trying to enforce in churches, having segregated church services for Jewish Christians, etc., etc. It is important to note, that even though Bonhoeffer says that the Church living among all nations takes the place of the Old Testament people of the covenant, it is a theological argument against a NATION-STATE (Germany of the Third Reich) which claimed to be the new Israel. In Bonhoeffer’s European context, state churches still held sway over and against free churches. The freedom of conscience was a foreign idea. Notions God’s faithfulness and our faithful response are the keys to understanding Bonhoeffer’s political theology; this requires living out the biblical narrative of God’s suffering love in solidarity with victims. Christian support for Israel should not be a blind, uncritical love affair, but grounded in the recognition of God’s faithfulness in the story of Israel and Jesus the Messiah.
“God abundantly shows God’s faithfulness by still keeping faith with Israel after the flesh, from whom was born Christ after the flesh, despite all their unfaithfulness, even after the crucifixion. It is God’s will to complete the salvation of the world, which began with the election of Israel, through these selfsame Jews (Romans 9-11). Therefore God continues to preserve a ‘holy remnant of Israel after the flesh, which can neither be absorbed into another nation by emancipation and assimilation, nor become one nation among others as a result of the efforts of Zionist and other similar movements, nor be exterminated by Pharaoh-like measures. […]
No nation can ever be commissioned to avenge on the Jews the murder at Golgotha. ‘Vengeance is mine, says the LORD.’ (Deuteronomy 32:35, Hebrews 10:30). We reject any attempt to misuse the miracle of God’s especial faithfulness toward Israel after the flesh as an indication of the religious significance of the Jewish people or of another people. […] The special element in the Jewish Christians does not lie in their race or their character or their history, but in God’s special faithfulness toward Israel after the flesh and in that alone. The way in which the Jewish Christians have a special position in the church which is not based on any legal ruling in itself makes them a living memorial of God’s faithfulness with the church and is a sign that the barrier between Jew and Gentile has been broken down and that faith in Christ may not be perverted into a national religion or a racially determined Christianity. It is the task of the Christians who come from the Gentile world to expose themselves to persecution rather than to surrender, willingly or unwillingly, even in one respect, their kinship with Jewish Christians in the church, founded on Word and Sacrament.” (Bonhoeffer, 136-137)
In other words, the Christian response to the anti-Semitism should not a joining in of the chorus of liberal and conservative antipathy towards the story of the Jews, but a joining in solidarity with those being persecuted. The cross of Christ, the historical revelation of God's complete and unalterable faithfulfness, deserves no other.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Geffrey B. Kelly, and F. Burton Nelson. A Testament to Freedom : The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Rev. ed. [San Francisco, Calif.]: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995.
UPDATE: NPR COMMENTARY ON ANTI-SEMITISM-- COMMENTARY
Jun 10, 2009
Pet Peeve: Political Campaigning in the Pulpit
I am taking a break from posting on Just(ice)fication: Divine Righteousness from a post-colonial perspective and an extended break from posting on Insights for Christian activism to discuss one of my pet peeves about certain church services.
My favorite Gospel in the New Testament to read growing up as a wide-eyed eight year-old in Louisville, KY was the Gospel according to Matthew in the King James version. This would explain a lot about my religious and political beliefs because I take the Sermon on the Mount to be authoritative since, you know, Jesus is the Master of the Universe in addition to being a very intelligent Teacher. Matthew 22:21 I especially love to quote, even today in the poetic form of the AUTHORIZED version of God's Holy Word: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." This passage, after I took Dr. Ron Flowers "Church and State Law in America class" a few years ago took on a new meaning for me.
Do not get me wrong. I am not one of those people who say, well, Jesus was not into politics, as if a relationship with the Master and Messiah of my life has no implications whatsoever for my relationships with my neighbors, the opposite sex, my country, my government. Indeed, there are political obligations for those who wish to represent Jesus the Messiah, whether they be male or female, black or white, rich or poor, conservative or liberal, etc., etc.
What I disapprove of is the brand of Constantinian Christianity that says the church exists to legitimate the political powers that be, whether it is in the form of a democratic-republic, constitutional-monarchy, or Islamo-fascist state. Because of the Church's prophetic task to take the Good News to the world and make disciples, it is necessary for some Christians to become involved in politics. But this involvement should not be at the expense of ignoring Christian principles just to suit one's own agenda or appease the people.
What I continue to find disturbing is North American churches on the RIGHT and LEFT where the messages from the pulpit are little more than the campaign slogan of the last general election, maybe a YES WE CAN there just to get the people excited or COUNTRY FIRST here so we can wrap the cross of Christ around the American flag. It makes me sick to my stomach to see politicians come up in front of congregations and pretend they are not campaigning and tell about how much they love the LORD and how much of a family woman/man they are. I have heard horror stories, from white Democratic campaign activists themselves bragging to me how they love to go to Black churches to drop-off campaign material (identity politics aside-- i will address this in later posts)and I have also seen on television Charismatic pastors preach that George W. Bush was God's man in 2000 because God spoke to Moses through a burning bush in Exodus 3. These are plain abominations! But, alas no one cares because nothing is sacred any more. Very little distinction between the holy and the worldly, the Christian and the lost. But I guess that is the point, though, huh?
My favorite Gospel in the New Testament to read growing up as a wide-eyed eight year-old in Louisville, KY was the Gospel according to Matthew in the King James version. This would explain a lot about my religious and political beliefs because I take the Sermon on the Mount to be authoritative since, you know, Jesus is the Master of the Universe in addition to being a very intelligent Teacher. Matthew 22:21 I especially love to quote, even today in the poetic form of the AUTHORIZED version of God's Holy Word: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." This passage, after I took Dr. Ron Flowers "Church and State Law in America class" a few years ago took on a new meaning for me.
Do not get me wrong. I am not one of those people who say, well, Jesus was not into politics, as if a relationship with the Master and Messiah of my life has no implications whatsoever for my relationships with my neighbors, the opposite sex, my country, my government. Indeed, there are political obligations for those who wish to represent Jesus the Messiah, whether they be male or female, black or white, rich or poor, conservative or liberal, etc., etc.
What I disapprove of is the brand of Constantinian Christianity that says the church exists to legitimate the political powers that be, whether it is in the form of a democratic-republic, constitutional-monarchy, or Islamo-fascist state. Because of the Church's prophetic task to take the Good News to the world and make disciples, it is necessary for some Christians to become involved in politics. But this involvement should not be at the expense of ignoring Christian principles just to suit one's own agenda or appease the people.
What I continue to find disturbing is North American churches on the RIGHT and LEFT where the messages from the pulpit are little more than the campaign slogan of the last general election, maybe a YES WE CAN there just to get the people excited or COUNTRY FIRST here so we can wrap the cross of Christ around the American flag. It makes me sick to my stomach to see politicians come up in front of congregations and pretend they are not campaigning and tell about how much they love the LORD and how much of a family woman/man they are. I have heard horror stories, from white Democratic campaign activists themselves bragging to me how they love to go to Black churches to drop-off campaign material (identity politics aside-- i will address this in later posts)and I have also seen on television Charismatic pastors preach that George W. Bush was God's man in 2000 because God spoke to Moses through a burning bush in Exodus 3. These are plain abominations! But, alas no one cares because nothing is sacred any more. Very little distinction between the holy and the worldly, the Christian and the lost. But I guess that is the point, though, huh?
Jun 6, 2009
JUST(ICE)FICATION PART 1: James Cone’s Doctrine of Justification: Divine Righteousness in Post-Colonial Perspective
Recently, New Testament scholar Scot McKnight of JESUS CREED has been working on a series dealing with, N T Wright, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul . At the center of the debate is the discussion whether or not the Reformers (especially Martin Luther) were correct in understanding the apostle Paul’s doctrine of justification by grace through faith as a response to the early Judaisms’ work righteousness. Tradition tells us that Paul was making a case against the Jews who viewed themselves as following the law and somehow earning their salvation to the next world; but is this view of history accurate? The scholars of the New Perspective on Paul would disagree. It is hard for me to totally concur with the traditional Reformation understanding of justification as well since one cannot say that there was just ONE Judaism in the first and second centuries. I personally think that N T Wright (as a first-rate biblical scholar) wasted his time in addressing John Piper and the hyper-Calvinists’criticism of him and the NPP school. The debate over whether or not this or that Judaism taught salvation as earned or not is completely irrelevant to the pressing issues of today. The point of Paul’s Gospel concerning God’s righteousness is to describe for us God’s action in the continual story in the life of Israel and Jesus the Messiah.
When one looks at history, while there are some objective facts to be retrieved, one cannot help but see history as a mirror reflection of one’s very own story. Martin Luther, for instance, viewed his condemnation of some of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church as part of a tradition of the apostle Paul’s struggle against the Jews’ works righteousness. With this narrative understanding of history, let us take as our example, James Cone, to some known as the father of Black Theology. Cone sees himself (although a Methodist) as sharing a similar plight to Martin Luther and St. Paul; the difference being the historical context, social location, and type of heresy/works righteousness that needed to be confronted. In his work, BLACK THEOLOGY & BLACK POWER, Cone provides a theological doctrine of divine righteousness which seeks to destroy white supremacy both in the white American church and white American society.
Adherence to the Reformation doctrine “Justification by grace through faith” has political implications in the minds of Black Theologians. To accept God’s grace for Cone, means that “that because God has acted for all, all men are free—free to respond creatively to that act. It thus becomes the act of Christian love to proclaim the Good News of freedom by actively fighting against all those powers which hold men captive” (Cone, 52). God does not move out of necessity; God has the free will to choose to act because God is sovereign, and God has done so in a particular way in history. The drama of the biblical narrative reveals God’s just actions. Therefore, Christian doctrine of justification should first begin in the very praxis of Yahweh and his Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Cone explains:
"It is important to note that God’s righteousness refers not so much to an abstract quality related to his Being in the realm of thought—as commonly found in Greek philosophy—but to his activity in human history, in the historical events of the time and effecting his purpose despite those who oppose it. This is the biblical tradition. Israel as a people initially came to know God through the exodus. It was Yahweh who emancipated her from Egyptian bondage and subsequently established a covenant with her at Sinai, promising: [Exodus 19:4-6]” [….] Divine righteousness means that God will be faithful to his promise, that his purposes for Israel will not be thwarted. Israel, therefore, need not worry about her weakness and powerlessness in a world of mighty military powers, ‘for all of the earth is mine’ (Exodus 19:5). The righteousness of God means that he will protect her from the ungodly menacing of other nations. Righteousness means God is doing justice, that he is putting right what men have made wrong.” (Cone, 44)
In other words, divine righteousness that is disclosed in the story of the Exodus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to protect the defenseless and weak Hebrew children over and against the evil Egyptian empire. Our faithful obedience to God requires our recognition that security and salvation lie with God alone. Cone adds:
“God will unquestionably vindicate the poor. […] If God is to be true to himself, his righteousness must be directed to the helpless and the poor, those who can expect no security from this world. The rich, the secure, the suburbanite can have no part of God’s righteousness because of their trust and dependence on the things of this world. ‘God’s righteousness triumphs when man has no means of triumphing.’ [Barth, Dogmatics] His righteousness is reserved for those who come empty-handed, without any economic, political, or social power. That is why the prophets and Jesus were so critical of the economically secure. Their security gets in the way of absolute faith in God.” (page 45)
While Cone does not explicitly discuss the Resurrection at length, the implication of his doctrine of justification is that the Resurrection vindicates God’s Elect Savior whose life and ministry is forever justified (1st Timothy 3:16 ). The emancipatory mission of Jesus of Nazareth has been approved by the One True God, the God of Israel for all eternity. The Son of Man came to judge the Roman Empire by taking the side of the oppressed, healing the lame and the blind, and opposing the religious and political authorities of his day. Not one human being is able to accuse Jesus the Messiah of any wrongdoing. As the apostle Paul asks, “Who will bring any charge against God’s Elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us” (Romans 8:33-34). We as sinful human beings are unable to bring any charges against God’s Son because he lives a perfect and blames life; and it is only by Jesus’s death and resurrection that God “makes a way out of no way” in which the Church can participate in his holy life.
I will let Cone have the last word:
“Radical obedience to Christ means that reward cannot be the motive for action. It is a denial of faith to insist on the relevance of reward. Is this not what St. Paul had in mind when he spoke of justification? When Paul uses the term ‘justification’ in reference to Christ he mean that sinful man, through complete trust alone, is accepted by God and is declared an treated as a righteous man. He is emphasizing man’s inability to make himself righteous. All human strivings are nil; man cannot earn God’s acceptance (Romans 3:20; Gal. 3:22). Salvation is by the free grace of God. There is no place for the conceit that men can save themselves by their own efforts, if they try hard enough.” (Cone, 125)
EDIT: THIS IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF POSTS EXAMINING JUSTIFICATION FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THEOLOGIES FROM THE MARGINS.
Works Cited
Cone, James H. Black Theology and Black Power An Original Seabury Paperback, Sp 59. New York,: Seabury Press, 1969.
When one looks at history, while there are some objective facts to be retrieved, one cannot help but see history as a mirror reflection of one’s very own story. Martin Luther, for instance, viewed his condemnation of some of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church as part of a tradition of the apostle Paul’s struggle against the Jews’ works righteousness. With this narrative understanding of history, let us take as our example, James Cone, to some known as the father of Black Theology. Cone sees himself (although a Methodist) as sharing a similar plight to Martin Luther and St. Paul; the difference being the historical context, social location, and type of heresy/works righteousness that needed to be confronted. In his work, BLACK THEOLOGY & BLACK POWER, Cone provides a theological doctrine of divine righteousness which seeks to destroy white supremacy both in the white American church and white American society.
Adherence to the Reformation doctrine “Justification by grace through faith” has political implications in the minds of Black Theologians. To accept God’s grace for Cone, means that “that because God has acted for all, all men are free—free to respond creatively to that act. It thus becomes the act of Christian love to proclaim the Good News of freedom by actively fighting against all those powers which hold men captive” (Cone, 52). God does not move out of necessity; God has the free will to choose to act because God is sovereign, and God has done so in a particular way in history. The drama of the biblical narrative reveals God’s just actions. Therefore, Christian doctrine of justification should first begin in the very praxis of Yahweh and his Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Cone explains:
"It is important to note that God’s righteousness refers not so much to an abstract quality related to his Being in the realm of thought—as commonly found in Greek philosophy—but to his activity in human history, in the historical events of the time and effecting his purpose despite those who oppose it. This is the biblical tradition. Israel as a people initially came to know God through the exodus. It was Yahweh who emancipated her from Egyptian bondage and subsequently established a covenant with her at Sinai, promising: [Exodus 19:4-6]” [….] Divine righteousness means that God will be faithful to his promise, that his purposes for Israel will not be thwarted. Israel, therefore, need not worry about her weakness and powerlessness in a world of mighty military powers, ‘for all of the earth is mine’ (Exodus 19:5). The righteousness of God means that he will protect her from the ungodly menacing of other nations. Righteousness means God is doing justice, that he is putting right what men have made wrong.” (Cone, 44)
In other words, divine righteousness that is disclosed in the story of the Exodus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to protect the defenseless and weak Hebrew children over and against the evil Egyptian empire. Our faithful obedience to God requires our recognition that security and salvation lie with God alone. Cone adds:
“God will unquestionably vindicate the poor. […] If God is to be true to himself, his righteousness must be directed to the helpless and the poor, those who can expect no security from this world. The rich, the secure, the suburbanite can have no part of God’s righteousness because of their trust and dependence on the things of this world. ‘God’s righteousness triumphs when man has no means of triumphing.’ [Barth, Dogmatics] His righteousness is reserved for those who come empty-handed, without any economic, political, or social power. That is why the prophets and Jesus were so critical of the economically secure. Their security gets in the way of absolute faith in God.” (page 45)
While Cone does not explicitly discuss the Resurrection at length, the implication of his doctrine of justification is that the Resurrection vindicates God’s Elect Savior whose life and ministry is forever justified (1st Timothy 3:16 ). The emancipatory mission of Jesus of Nazareth has been approved by the One True God, the God of Israel for all eternity. The Son of Man came to judge the Roman Empire by taking the side of the oppressed, healing the lame and the blind, and opposing the religious and political authorities of his day. Not one human being is able to accuse Jesus the Messiah of any wrongdoing. As the apostle Paul asks, “Who will bring any charge against God’s Elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us” (Romans 8:33-34). We as sinful human beings are unable to bring any charges against God’s Son because he lives a perfect and blames life; and it is only by Jesus’s death and resurrection that God “makes a way out of no way” in which the Church can participate in his holy life.
I will let Cone have the last word:
“Radical obedience to Christ means that reward cannot be the motive for action. It is a denial of faith to insist on the relevance of reward. Is this not what St. Paul had in mind when he spoke of justification? When Paul uses the term ‘justification’ in reference to Christ he mean that sinful man, through complete trust alone, is accepted by God and is declared an treated as a righteous man. He is emphasizing man’s inability to make himself righteous. All human strivings are nil; man cannot earn God’s acceptance (Romans 3:20; Gal. 3:22). Salvation is by the free grace of God. There is no place for the conceit that men can save themselves by their own efforts, if they try hard enough.” (Cone, 125)
EDIT: THIS IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF POSTS EXAMINING JUSTIFICATION FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THEOLOGIES FROM THE MARGINS.
Works Cited
Cone, James H. Black Theology and Black Power An Original Seabury Paperback, Sp 59. New York,: Seabury Press, 1969.
May 29, 2009
The Gift of Meekness: A Counter to N.T. Wright's Case For A Stronger United Nations, PART 3
THE QUESTION OF THE U.N.
N T Wright on the United Nations:
"the USA and Britain could never act as a credible police force in the world, especially in the Middle East;
(ii) imposing the will of the West, by brute force, on another part of the world, simply invokes a might-is-right philosophy which we will strongly object to as soon as India or China attains superpower status and decides to effect regime change in London or Washington;
[…]
All this has happened, and I conclude that this war always was unjust, and that if we wanted to prevent Saddam tyrannizing his own people (why stop there? There are plenty of other brutal tyrants in the world) the best and only way was through . . . the United Nations. YES, I KNOW – this, quickly, to those who at once pour scorn on the very mention of it – the United Nations has been a laughing-stock and, despite many successes (some unsung), has had many failures and muddles. But part of this is because America has had a strong vested interest in keeping the UN weak (just like America doesn’t like the idea of an international court of justice, or the Kyoto protocol, etc.).
We badly need a credible international police force; we don’t have one at the moment; USA plus Britain can’t function as such; we should be working flat out either at enabling the UN to act in that way or at creating a body that can."
I agree with NT Wright that the War for Iraq was a political mistake but he is mistaken in thinking that the error lies in George W. Bush or Tony Blair not following the guidelines of the Augustinian Just War theory; rather, the Operation Iraqi Freedom was a blunder largely because the unfaithfulness of the Bush administration to the U.S. Constitution (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 11-the Power to declare war by CONGRESS!) and Bush presidency’s insubORDinate behavior (that is, their refusal to subject themselves to the demands of God’s Word) towards the command in Romans 13 to be subORDinate to the authorities, which is in this case, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate according to the Constitution. Even the proposal of a United Nations’ created international police force by Wright runs contrary to the principles that the United Nations was founded upon.
Chapter 1, Article 1, section 1 of the UN Charter clearly states that the United Nations desires to MAINTAIN international peace and security as well as to develop friendly relationships, and achieve international cooperation; but it goes on to recognize in Article 2, section 1 that each state is EQUALLY SOVEREIGN and in section 4 of that same article that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In other words, the establishment of a police force that uses both actual and veiled forms of violence, is contrary to the UN Charter and violates the rights of individual member states.
In addition, Wright overlooks the unequal power relationships created by the existence of the U.N. Security Council as it stands right now. The notion that it is necessary to keep the same five particular countries which must remain on the council with veto powers or the peculiar statuses of the Vatican and Palestine having Permanent Observers to the UN. The nature of these relationships along with the good number of intergovernmental agencies such as the African Union and the European community must be dealt with before there is any talk of an international police force; are regional considerations and differences, for example, going to be respected? Lastly, if it is a possible to create a police force through the United Nations as it exists, what authority will the force be accountable to? The International Court of Justice? The International Criminal Court? Or maybe individual states?
Rather than trying to find a solution based on an unwarranted fear of chaos, I propose that the Church follow a model that first recognized the Mastery of Jesus the Messiah over the universe. Christians do have their own charter, the new Law given to us as a gift by Christ, from which we read about in Scripture called the Sermon on the Mount. We must subORDinate our lives to the law of Christ and then subsequently, the laws of the land. There is a Christian organization dedicated to making peace, and not just keeping the peace as the U.N. is called to do. The Matthew 5:21-26 Project is a group of Evangelicals and Pentecostals whose aim it is to recognize the Lordship of Jesus the Messiah by making him LORD over everything in their lives, including their relationships with strangers and “enemies.” They serve as an example of a peaceful witness dedicated to the limitation of governments to wield arms and the promotion of nuclear weapons reductions. An international police force will not be necessary because God has ordained the Church to serve as a nonviolent radical remnant beholden to the Crucified, Risen, and Returning LORD and the order that God prefers in the empire of God.
Vicit agnus noster; eum sequamur
Our Lamb has conquered; him let us follow.
Works Cited
Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus : Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.Carlisle, U.K.: Eerdmans ; Paternoster Press, 1994.
The Gift of Powerlessness, Part 1
The Gift of Powerlessness, Part 2
DISCLAIMER #1 (NICHOLAS THOMAS WRIGHT)- There are many persons in the blogosphere who make it their business to criticize the work of NT Wright and the New Perspective on Paul based on hermeneutical and theological differences. Usually, it comes from the corners of the evangelical community that lean Reformed. This post is no such thing. I refuse to put Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, and for that matter, Karl Barth on a pedestal. Far from it; it is the author’s wish to push great men like these from their thrones in the royal court of theology and see Jesus the Messiah at the center of all theological reflection. That would include ethics, politics, race relations, sexual issues, and economics.
DISCLAIMER #2 (THE UNITED NATIONS)- There are a few Christian communities that have given society the impression that all Christians possess an irrational fear of the United Nations or any form of international cooperation. In fact, the producers of such stellar Christian movies such as MEGGIDO and the writers of the LEFT BEHIND series even go so far as to intimate that the UN or an organization as such will be an instrument of the Anti-Messiah. I do not interpret the book of Revelation in such a manner, and will I am fully aware of the tradition behind the pre-millenial dispensationalist reading of that text, there seems to be too many holes regarding that interpretation. I do affirm the physical, bodily return of Jesus the Messiah; I just do not share the same reasoning for believing in his return as pre-mils or Wright. This blog post is not going to be a fear-mongering, UN-bashing polemic.
N T Wright on the United Nations:
"the USA and Britain could never act as a credible police force in the world, especially in the Middle East;
(ii) imposing the will of the West, by brute force, on another part of the world, simply invokes a might-is-right philosophy which we will strongly object to as soon as India or China attains superpower status and decides to effect regime change in London or Washington;
[…]
All this has happened, and I conclude that this war always was unjust, and that if we wanted to prevent Saddam tyrannizing his own people (why stop there? There are plenty of other brutal tyrants in the world) the best and only way was through . . . the United Nations. YES, I KNOW – this, quickly, to those who at once pour scorn on the very mention of it – the United Nations has been a laughing-stock and, despite many successes (some unsung), has had many failures and muddles. But part of this is because America has had a strong vested interest in keeping the UN weak (just like America doesn’t like the idea of an international court of justice, or the Kyoto protocol, etc.).
We badly need a credible international police force; we don’t have one at the moment; USA plus Britain can’t function as such; we should be working flat out either at enabling the UN to act in that way or at creating a body that can."
I agree with NT Wright that the War for Iraq was a political mistake but he is mistaken in thinking that the error lies in George W. Bush or Tony Blair not following the guidelines of the Augustinian Just War theory; rather, the Operation Iraqi Freedom was a blunder largely because the unfaithfulness of the Bush administration to the U.S. Constitution (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 11-the Power to declare war by CONGRESS!) and Bush presidency’s insubORDinate behavior (that is, their refusal to subject themselves to the demands of God’s Word) towards the command in Romans 13 to be subORDinate to the authorities, which is in this case, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate according to the Constitution. Even the proposal of a United Nations’ created international police force by Wright runs contrary to the principles that the United Nations was founded upon.
Chapter 1, Article 1, section 1 of the UN Charter clearly states that the United Nations desires to MAINTAIN international peace and security as well as to develop friendly relationships, and achieve international cooperation; but it goes on to recognize in Article 2, section 1 that each state is EQUALLY SOVEREIGN and in section 4 of that same article that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In other words, the establishment of a police force that uses both actual and veiled forms of violence, is contrary to the UN Charter and violates the rights of individual member states.
In addition, Wright overlooks the unequal power relationships created by the existence of the U.N. Security Council as it stands right now. The notion that it is necessary to keep the same five particular countries which must remain on the council with veto powers or the peculiar statuses of the Vatican and Palestine having Permanent Observers to the UN. The nature of these relationships along with the good number of intergovernmental agencies such as the African Union and the European community must be dealt with before there is any talk of an international police force; are regional considerations and differences, for example, going to be respected? Lastly, if it is a possible to create a police force through the United Nations as it exists, what authority will the force be accountable to? The International Court of Justice? The International Criminal Court? Or maybe individual states?
Rather than trying to find a solution based on an unwarranted fear of chaos, I propose that the Church follow a model that first recognized the Mastery of Jesus the Messiah over the universe. Christians do have their own charter, the new Law given to us as a gift by Christ, from which we read about in Scripture called the Sermon on the Mount. We must subORDinate our lives to the law of Christ and then subsequently, the laws of the land. There is a Christian organization dedicated to making peace, and not just keeping the peace as the U.N. is called to do. The Matthew 5:21-26 Project is a group of Evangelicals and Pentecostals whose aim it is to recognize the Lordship of Jesus the Messiah by making him LORD over everything in their lives, including their relationships with strangers and “enemies.” They serve as an example of a peaceful witness dedicated to the limitation of governments to wield arms and the promotion of nuclear weapons reductions. An international police force will not be necessary because God has ordained the Church to serve as a nonviolent radical remnant beholden to the Crucified, Risen, and Returning LORD and the order that God prefers in the empire of God.
Vicit agnus noster; eum sequamur
Our Lamb has conquered; him let us follow.
Works Cited
Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus : Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.Carlisle, U.K.: Eerdmans ; Paternoster Press, 1994.
The Gift of Powerlessness, Part 1
The Gift of Powerlessness, Part 2
DISCLAIMER #1 (NICHOLAS THOMAS WRIGHT)- There are many persons in the blogosphere who make it their business to criticize the work of NT Wright and the New Perspective on Paul based on hermeneutical and theological differences. Usually, it comes from the corners of the evangelical community that lean Reformed. This post is no such thing. I refuse to put Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, and for that matter, Karl Barth on a pedestal. Far from it; it is the author’s wish to push great men like these from their thrones in the royal court of theology and see Jesus the Messiah at the center of all theological reflection. That would include ethics, politics, race relations, sexual issues, and economics.
DISCLAIMER #2 (THE UNITED NATIONS)- There are a few Christian communities that have given society the impression that all Christians possess an irrational fear of the United Nations or any form of international cooperation. In fact, the producers of such stellar Christian movies such as MEGGIDO and the writers of the LEFT BEHIND series even go so far as to intimate that the UN or an organization as such will be an instrument of the Anti-Messiah. I do not interpret the book of Revelation in such a manner, and will I am fully aware of the tradition behind the pre-millenial dispensationalist reading of that text, there seems to be too many holes regarding that interpretation. I do affirm the physical, bodily return of Jesus the Messiah; I just do not share the same reasoning for believing in his return as pre-mils or Wright. This blog post is not going to be a fear-mongering, UN-bashing polemic.
The Gift of Meekness: A Counter to N.T. Wright's Case For A Stronger United Nations, PART 2
THE QUESTION OF POWER
N T Wright says of the powers that be:
"The problem, of course, is that human authorities themselves are then tempted to become part of the problem to which they are supposed to be an anticipation of the solution, and then you get the double chaos of tyranny – a chaos held in place by an essentially chaotic, because unjust, rule. Because one of the God-given tasks of authorities in the present time is to protect the weak and vulnerable from oppression, I believe that police action is often necessary, involving physical restraint and sometimes actual violence to prevent wicked and powerful people getting away with their intended ill-treatment of the weak, poor and vulnerable."
N T Wright is correct; police action is necessary; humans need to be restrained at some point because we are all fallen sinners. Police action, however, should never be confused with war-making or empire-building. Normally, Christians use Romans 13:1-7 as their text when arguing the state’s right to go to war, but the passage is primarily about the policing affairs of the nation-state. The activity of police forces are held accountable to higher authorities. Yoder argues that it is fallacious to place the doctrine of just war under the umbrella of police authority. While violence from a police officer is (ideally) applied to an individual who breaks the law, the imperative for justifiable wars does not seem to be located in this text. The sword, or the machaira, was really a dagger used by the Roman military that served as a symbol of judicial authority, not executive (Yoder, 203). An honest reading of Romans 13 should lead us to conclude that the Christian concept of Just War theory (which excludes Jesus’ peace-making mission) simply cannot be found in the text, rather the doctrine of Just War is read into the meaning of this passage.
Also, I feel uncomfortable with Wright’s vision of power where god is invisibly working behind the scenes as that g-d secretly and unambiguously endorses the heroes over the villains while Jesus functions as some superhero in the mold of Captain America who will come back to save the day just as the world is about to drown in chaos. In the realm of international politics, where EVERY state is driven by self-interest, any nation can be considered the “good” guy at any point in history as well as any country can earn the label of the “bad” guy just as well. Wright still understands the power of God as the ability to control, to micro-manage the human situation at any given point in history, joining the good guys in their cause eventually at the end. While Wright is honestly trying to deal with the problem of empires abusing their power, he falls into the trap of promoting a soft form of triumphalism. Rather than viewing Christian victory as something where the divine assures us of our triumph because of the effectiveness of some method or strategy on our part; rather true Christian victory comes from joining in the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. If I may refer to Yoder once more:
"The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and other kinds of power in every human conflict. The triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys. The relationship between obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection." (232)
Absent from Wright’s political theology expressed in his criticism of the U.S. and U.K.’s bilateral war in Iraq is what Luther called a “theologia crucis,” or a theology of the cross. Luther says that in Thesis 20, “He [sic] deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.” And in Thesis 21, he continues to say about theologians of glory, “A theologian of glory calls suffering evil while he [sic] calls works good. In fact, he [sic] works to avoid suffering.” One cannot divorce a theology of the cross from the Resurrection and Return of Jesus that easily in a Christian political theology. These three events constitute one salvific episode; to uplift one at the expense of the other is to neglect certain parts of the implications of God’s liberating and reconciling activity in the world. In particular, there is a tendency on both the right and the left to try to leave out as many references to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as possible. My fear is that Christian communities [that is, the many forms of Christianity whether they are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Mennonite, etc.] will start to adopt theologies of glory while neglecting those human beings on the margins of society, suffering and dying much like our Savior who has joined them in their oppressed state. In part three, we will examine what this means for a Christian view of international peacemaking missions.
N T Wright says of the powers that be:
"The problem, of course, is that human authorities themselves are then tempted to become part of the problem to which they are supposed to be an anticipation of the solution, and then you get the double chaos of tyranny – a chaos held in place by an essentially chaotic, because unjust, rule. Because one of the God-given tasks of authorities in the present time is to protect the weak and vulnerable from oppression, I believe that police action is often necessary, involving physical restraint and sometimes actual violence to prevent wicked and powerful people getting away with their intended ill-treatment of the weak, poor and vulnerable."
N T Wright is correct; police action is necessary; humans need to be restrained at some point because we are all fallen sinners. Police action, however, should never be confused with war-making or empire-building. Normally, Christians use Romans 13:1-7 as their text when arguing the state’s right to go to war, but the passage is primarily about the policing affairs of the nation-state. The activity of police forces are held accountable to higher authorities. Yoder argues that it is fallacious to place the doctrine of just war under the umbrella of police authority. While violence from a police officer is (ideally) applied to an individual who breaks the law, the imperative for justifiable wars does not seem to be located in this text. The sword, or the machaira, was really a dagger used by the Roman military that served as a symbol of judicial authority, not executive (Yoder, 203). An honest reading of Romans 13 should lead us to conclude that the Christian concept of Just War theory (which excludes Jesus’ peace-making mission) simply cannot be found in the text, rather the doctrine of Just War is read into the meaning of this passage.
Also, I feel uncomfortable with Wright’s vision of power where god is invisibly working behind the scenes as that g-d secretly and unambiguously endorses the heroes over the villains while Jesus functions as some superhero in the mold of Captain America who will come back to save the day just as the world is about to drown in chaos. In the realm of international politics, where EVERY state is driven by self-interest, any nation can be considered the “good” guy at any point in history as well as any country can earn the label of the “bad” guy just as well. Wright still understands the power of God as the ability to control, to micro-manage the human situation at any given point in history, joining the good guys in their cause eventually at the end. While Wright is honestly trying to deal with the problem of empires abusing their power, he falls into the trap of promoting a soft form of triumphalism. Rather than viewing Christian victory as something where the divine assures us of our triumph because of the effectiveness of some method or strategy on our part; rather true Christian victory comes from joining in the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. If I may refer to Yoder once more:
"The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and other kinds of power in every human conflict. The triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys. The relationship between obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection." (232)
Absent from Wright’s political theology expressed in his criticism of the U.S. and U.K.’s bilateral war in Iraq is what Luther called a “theologia crucis,” or a theology of the cross. Luther says that in Thesis 20, “He [sic] deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.” And in Thesis 21, he continues to say about theologians of glory, “A theologian of glory calls suffering evil while he [sic] calls works good. In fact, he [sic] works to avoid suffering.” One cannot divorce a theology of the cross from the Resurrection and Return of Jesus that easily in a Christian political theology. These three events constitute one salvific episode; to uplift one at the expense of the other is to neglect certain parts of the implications of God’s liberating and reconciling activity in the world. In particular, there is a tendency on both the right and the left to try to leave out as many references to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as possible. My fear is that Christian communities [that is, the many forms of Christianity whether they are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Mennonite, etc.] will start to adopt theologies of glory while neglecting those human beings on the margins of society, suffering and dying much like our Savior who has joined them in their oppressed state. In part three, we will examine what this means for a Christian view of international peacemaking missions.
May 28, 2009
The Gift of Meekness: A Counter to N.T. Wright's Case For A Stronger United Nations, PART 1
NT Wright on a stronger United Nations
THE QUESTION OF ADOLF HITLER
Usually, whenever I find myself discussing issues of war and peace with other Christians, they always ask the exact same question: What if there is another Adolf Hitler [insert the name of a Two-Thirds world dictator here if you like]? From the very start, these Christians who are advocates usually of some form of Just War theory are asking the wrong question. That is the problem with Christians today! In order to make their case for the destruction of human life, they start out with inquiries based on fear of what happened in the past the Shoah or the Holocaust during World War II in most circles. As Christians, we participate in the life of Jesus the Messiah; therefore, he should be the beginning and end of all ethical questions and not Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong IL. We should be asking, “What has Jesus done? What is Jesus doing? What will Jesus do?” NT Wright is one of those Christians that I was referring to earlier, the ones not asking the correct questions to begin conversations of ethical discourse. Rather than phrasing the question in a way that is Christ-centered, Wright, for example begins his case for a strong United Nations with typical Just War logic. Let us examine his case.
1. N T Wright says about the doctrine of just war:
"The doctrine of ‘just war’ was developed in order to emphasize that, though war is always an evil, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Doing justice, in whatever form, is always about anticipating in the present God’s eventual design to put the whole world to rights, to gather up all things in heaven and on earth into Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.10). Though God will eventually do this completely and fully, he does not want the creation to lapse into complete chaos in the present age, and so calls into being structures of human government and authority to bring about a measure of order, some kind of anticipation of his eventual putting-to-rights of all things."
Granted, Wright has to simplify his definition of what the doctrine of just war is for a general audience rather than a particularly Christian one, but he is defending the traditional Christian case for just wars. Now, the first problem is that he suggests that “doing justice, in whatever form” is done in the anticipation of God’s act of justifying the entire creation. I question the idea that we can be just in “whatever form.” From a Christian standpoint, we have a peculiar way of examining what is or is not just and that is the Justifier (Romans 5). There are many forms of justice; among them are: social justice, racial justice, gender justice, environmental justice, retributive justice, restorative justice, and transformative justice. The question we have to ask ourselves is: does God’s justice include all of these, only one of these, or just a few of these forms of justice. Christian concepts of any form of justice begin with God’s image, or Jesus the Messiah.
Rather than beginning questions of justice with inquiries such as, ‘Why does this or that injustice exist?’ and then subsequently answer that question with an answer that may or may not be biblical, one should start with, “How did/is Christ, God’s righteousness revealed, manage/ managing this event?” Secondly, Wright is presenting a God of LAW and ORDER who soothes the bourgeois classes’ fears of THEIR society going into utter chaos. Chaos is seen as a problem, as something that must be confronted and controlled. Does Wright ever bother to ask if chaos is God’s instrument to fashion the world, by allowing various free agents with free will living within the order that God sustains so that God can have a loving, covenantal relationship with that creation? John Howard Yoder had quite different Christian understanding by which God brings the state and political institutions into order:
"to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then God made government through a new creative invention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. […] Nor is it that by ordering this realm God specifically, morally approves of what a government does. […] God does not take responsibility for the existence of the rebellious ‘powers that be or for their shape or identity; they already are. What the text says is that God orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purposes." (Yoder, 203)
According to Yoder, God does not endorse or support any one form of government over the centuries; rather, God allows humans with free will to choose their preference of governance, and then God responds by sending witnesses to these powers in their place. The one rule that God accepts is the reign of the Messiah; the Church universal, which claims to adhere to Solo Christo), must subORDinate themselves under God’s chosen priest-king who both initiates and reigns in the nonviolent empire of God. All other forms of government are temporary, provisional, and fallen, and always in need of reform. No human empire or emperor has the divine right to impose their will upon the Earth. That authority is reserved solely for the Triune God; whether or not God has chosen to utilize domination as the means of accomplishing God’s will is a question to be answered in part 2.
THE QUESTION OF ADOLF HITLER
Usually, whenever I find myself discussing issues of war and peace with other Christians, they always ask the exact same question: What if there is another Adolf Hitler [insert the name of a Two-Thirds world dictator here if you like]? From the very start, these Christians who are advocates usually of some form of Just War theory are asking the wrong question. That is the problem with Christians today! In order to make their case for the destruction of human life, they start out with inquiries based on fear of what happened in the past the Shoah or the Holocaust during World War II in most circles. As Christians, we participate in the life of Jesus the Messiah; therefore, he should be the beginning and end of all ethical questions and not Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong IL. We should be asking, “What has Jesus done? What is Jesus doing? What will Jesus do?” NT Wright is one of those Christians that I was referring to earlier, the ones not asking the correct questions to begin conversations of ethical discourse. Rather than phrasing the question in a way that is Christ-centered, Wright, for example begins his case for a strong United Nations with typical Just War logic. Let us examine his case.
1. N T Wright says about the doctrine of just war:
"The doctrine of ‘just war’ was developed in order to emphasize that, though war is always an evil, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Doing justice, in whatever form, is always about anticipating in the present God’s eventual design to put the whole world to rights, to gather up all things in heaven and on earth into Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.10). Though God will eventually do this completely and fully, he does not want the creation to lapse into complete chaos in the present age, and so calls into being structures of human government and authority to bring about a measure of order, some kind of anticipation of his eventual putting-to-rights of all things."
Granted, Wright has to simplify his definition of what the doctrine of just war is for a general audience rather than a particularly Christian one, but he is defending the traditional Christian case for just wars. Now, the first problem is that he suggests that “doing justice, in whatever form” is done in the anticipation of God’s act of justifying the entire creation. I question the idea that we can be just in “whatever form.” From a Christian standpoint, we have a peculiar way of examining what is or is not just and that is the Justifier (Romans 5). There are many forms of justice; among them are: social justice, racial justice, gender justice, environmental justice, retributive justice, restorative justice, and transformative justice. The question we have to ask ourselves is: does God’s justice include all of these, only one of these, or just a few of these forms of justice. Christian concepts of any form of justice begin with God’s image, or Jesus the Messiah.
Rather than beginning questions of justice with inquiries such as, ‘Why does this or that injustice exist?’ and then subsequently answer that question with an answer that may or may not be biblical, one should start with, “How did/is Christ, God’s righteousness revealed, manage/ managing this event?” Secondly, Wright is presenting a God of LAW and ORDER who soothes the bourgeois classes’ fears of THEIR society going into utter chaos. Chaos is seen as a problem, as something that must be confronted and controlled. Does Wright ever bother to ask if chaos is God’s instrument to fashion the world, by allowing various free agents with free will living within the order that God sustains so that God can have a loving, covenantal relationship with that creation? John Howard Yoder had quite different Christian understanding by which God brings the state and political institutions into order:
"to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then God made government through a new creative invention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. […] Nor is it that by ordering this realm God specifically, morally approves of what a government does. […] God does not take responsibility for the existence of the rebellious ‘powers that be or for their shape or identity; they already are. What the text says is that God orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purposes." (Yoder, 203)
According to Yoder, God does not endorse or support any one form of government over the centuries; rather, God allows humans with free will to choose their preference of governance, and then God responds by sending witnesses to these powers in their place. The one rule that God accepts is the reign of the Messiah; the Church universal, which claims to adhere to Solo Christo), must subORDinate themselves under God’s chosen priest-king who both initiates and reigns in the nonviolent empire of God. All other forms of government are temporary, provisional, and fallen, and always in need of reform. No human empire or emperor has the divine right to impose their will upon the Earth. That authority is reserved solely for the Triune God; whether or not God has chosen to utilize domination as the means of accomplishing God’s will is a question to be answered in part 2.
May 26, 2009
NABPR paper presentation and sesssions
The NABPR paper presentation went well. Last night, at 11:15p.m., I sat down on the couch and wrote the last five sentences of my NABPR paper. That was a struggle. How does one conclude an assessment on three books, on the same topic, from three very different perspectives? My original plan was in the hopes of having at least two pages to sketch out my own constructive theology of sexuality involving the last half of John 2, 1st Corinthians 3:16-17, and 2nd Corinthians 7, three passages that unite the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah with the story of the Jerusalem temple. So, instead, I only made a short allusion to it in this manner:
“Conclusion
It is not possible for any one Christian thinker to come up with a resolution to the sexual and racial issues that currently divide the Body of Christ. Although one may not agree with their methodology and/or conclusions, the works of Grenz, Douglas, and De La Torre can serve as conversation starters to at least get congregations thinking theologically about race and sex. Jesus of Nazareth, whose human body the Evangelist of the Gospel of John refers to as the Holy of Holies of God, is the central revelation for the Christian understanding of the divine and human. Therefore, it should be the mission of the Church to develop an ethic of racial and gender justice where every human body is treated as the temple of the most High God.”
Fuller Seminary’s Glenn Stassen, a personal friend of the late Stanley Grenz, had high remarks for my presentation. One of Grenz’s students who was part of the audience even told me that I had a good grasp of Grenz’s views. Overall today was a good day. I got my inspiration from Acts 4 and Judges 6, two stories of great courage. During the sessions I was not presenting, I came out firing on all cylinders, asking the hard questions. I was merciful though; better a friend and member of a society asking the hard questions to prepare presenters than an enemy, right? To be honest, last night’s Opening program made me sad in the inside. I heard Bob Darden’s story of the Black Gospel Restoration Project. I felt like cursing the Hip Hop culture after that. It is a story of lost LPs, records, and Black recording artists getting scammed and facing racism as well. In recognition of this cause, I have added a link to this blog.
Later tonight, I did not calm down from this morning. I listened to a presentation on John Howard Yoder's call to Christian peacemaking. The author I completely disagree with because the author of the paper implied that Yoder was just some pacifist who just saw all religions united by nonviolence. This is simply untrue. Yeah, at Warsaw, in front of a Roman Catholic audience, Yoder would appeal more than to just Jesus and the scripture and Christian tradition, but for anyone who has read Yoder's The Politics of Jesus knows that the crucifixion is the key theological doctrine for his ethic of nonviolence; Yoder is promoting a particularly cruciform, and therefore, a Christian ethic of non-violence. There is a difference. Glen Stassen was in that audience and he agreed with me as did one other professor. I have already blogged about the difference between being an advocate of Christian nonviolence and being a Christian with the political position of pacifism; see here: A conversion to Christian nonviolence
Below is a copy of my NABPR paper presentation:
The Temple He Had Spoken Of Was His Body: Christian Sexual Ethics, Race, Sexuality, and the Biblical Narrative from Womanist, Liberationist, and Evangelical Perspectives
“Conclusion
It is not possible for any one Christian thinker to come up with a resolution to the sexual and racial issues that currently divide the Body of Christ. Although one may not agree with their methodology and/or conclusions, the works of Grenz, Douglas, and De La Torre can serve as conversation starters to at least get congregations thinking theologically about race and sex. Jesus of Nazareth, whose human body the Evangelist of the Gospel of John refers to as the Holy of Holies of God, is the central revelation for the Christian understanding of the divine and human. Therefore, it should be the mission of the Church to develop an ethic of racial and gender justice where every human body is treated as the temple of the most High God.”
Fuller Seminary’s Glenn Stassen, a personal friend of the late Stanley Grenz, had high remarks for my presentation. One of Grenz’s students who was part of the audience even told me that I had a good grasp of Grenz’s views. Overall today was a good day. I got my inspiration from Acts 4 and Judges 6, two stories of great courage. During the sessions I was not presenting, I came out firing on all cylinders, asking the hard questions. I was merciful though; better a friend and member of a society asking the hard questions to prepare presenters than an enemy, right? To be honest, last night’s Opening program made me sad in the inside. I heard Bob Darden’s story of the Black Gospel Restoration Project. I felt like cursing the Hip Hop culture after that. It is a story of lost LPs, records, and Black recording artists getting scammed and facing racism as well. In recognition of this cause, I have added a link to this blog.
Later tonight, I did not calm down from this morning. I listened to a presentation on John Howard Yoder's call to Christian peacemaking. The author I completely disagree with because the author of the paper implied that Yoder was just some pacifist who just saw all religions united by nonviolence. This is simply untrue. Yeah, at Warsaw, in front of a Roman Catholic audience, Yoder would appeal more than to just Jesus and the scripture and Christian tradition, but for anyone who has read Yoder's The Politics of Jesus knows that the crucifixion is the key theological doctrine for his ethic of nonviolence; Yoder is promoting a particularly cruciform, and therefore, a Christian ethic of non-violence. There is a difference. Glen Stassen was in that audience and he agreed with me as did one other professor. I have already blogged about the difference between being an advocate of Christian nonviolence and being a Christian with the political position of pacifism; see here: A conversion to Christian nonviolence
Below is a copy of my NABPR paper presentation:
The Temple He Had Spoken Of Was His Body: Christian Sexual Ethics, Race, Sexuality, and the Biblical Narrative from Womanist, Liberationist, and Evangelical Perspectives
May 25, 2009
The Mass X-odus to Word Press.... and me an X-egete?
I have a few friends who have left either just begun blogging or who have made a switch to Wordpress.com. No worries, I am not leaving Blogspot.com anytime soon. It has been good to me;
I have known Richard since my days as a religious studies major at Texas Christian University. He is into Biblical studies and hermeneutics.
I met Rob on the Theology Rocks Facebook group. Ah, those were the days. Now, he is at Dallas Seminary mastering the Hebrew Bible.
I recently encountered Mike a few months ago on the biblioblogosphere. His interests are the New Testament and Christian origins.
On a personal note, it seems so funny that recently I have been seriously considering a change in my career path. Rather than working in the field of systematic and constructive theologies or theological ethics, it has been recommended to me that I should look into becoming a biblical studies person. You know, those people, that study all those weird sounding languages, in addition to Greek and Hebrew, like Aramaic or Uggaritic, or ancient Georgian. I really have run out of excuses as to why I am not. It is not like I could not do biblical studies, ethics and theology all at the same time; these are all interrelated, obviously. Imagining if I did change, I may pursue something to do with the 1)Gospel of Matthew, 2) the Letter to the Hebrews, 3) the Son of Man tradition 4) the Priestly Messiah in the second Temple Judaism. I do like what I read from the New Perspective on Paul folk, like N.T. Wright and James D.G. Dunn. I guess I will have to keep praying over this. What do you all think?
I have known Richard since my days as a religious studies major at Texas Christian University. He is into Biblical studies and hermeneutics.
I met Rob on the Theology Rocks Facebook group. Ah, those were the days. Now, he is at Dallas Seminary mastering the Hebrew Bible.
I recently encountered Mike a few months ago on the biblioblogosphere. His interests are the New Testament and Christian origins.
On a personal note, it seems so funny that recently I have been seriously considering a change in my career path. Rather than working in the field of systematic and constructive theologies or theological ethics, it has been recommended to me that I should look into becoming a biblical studies person. You know, those people, that study all those weird sounding languages, in addition to Greek and Hebrew, like Aramaic or Uggaritic, or ancient Georgian. I really have run out of excuses as to why I am not. It is not like I could not do biblical studies, ethics and theology all at the same time; these are all interrelated, obviously. Imagining if I did change, I may pursue something to do with the 1)Gospel of Matthew, 2) the Letter to the Hebrews, 3) the Son of Man tradition 4) the Priestly Messiah in the second Temple Judaism. I do like what I read from the New Perspective on Paul folk, like N.T. Wright and James D.G. Dunn. I guess I will have to keep praying over this. What do you all think?
A Memorial Day Reflection
Michael, over at Pisteuomen, has an interesting Memorial Day reflection for Christians located in the U.S.A.
May 18, 2009
John D. Zizioulas on the individual
Some context and explanation for this quote. I came across this quote from John D. Zizioulas while I went back to read his Being As Communion again. I did not catch it the first time I read it because I was focused on Zizioulas' notion of Truth as ontology (rather than a propositional statement) as well as his view of community for my past work. But my search for his case in favor of theosis (the Christ follower's participation in God's Holiness) led me to find this passage. Keep in mind, the term persona, for Zizioulas, is used in a negative (i.e., not positive, or bad) sense, in which personas are really masks for human beings who continue to live a lie (outside the Truth, true being, a.k.a., Jesus the Messiah).
"Uniqueness is something absolute for the person. The person is so absolute in its uniqueness that it does not permit itself to be regarded as an arithmetical concept, to be set alongside other beings, to be combined with other objects, or to be used as a means, even for the most sacred goal. The goal is the person itself; personhood is the total fulfillment of being, the catholic expression of its nature. This tendency of the person, like freedom, is the 'two--edged sword' of existence. For applied to man it leads to the denial of others, to egocentrism, to the destruction of social life. As in the case of freedom, so with the unique and hypostatic nature of the person, a relativisation appears to be indispensible if chaos is to be avoided. Thus uniqueness is relativised in social life, and man becomes--in a greater or lesser degree but nevertheless assusredly so-- a useful 'object,' a 'combination,' a persona. But it is precisely this which constitutes the tragic aspect of the person. Diffused today throughout all forms of social life is the intense search for personal identity."
John D. Zizioulas in Being As Communion:Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY,St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002. p.47.
In other words, once we start denying the uniqueness of the human individual person, we risk objectifying people and only seen her and/or him as another cog in the machine, only useful for our own objectives. That would make all forms of essentialism and stereotypes dehumanizing, huh?
"Uniqueness is something absolute for the person. The person is so absolute in its uniqueness that it does not permit itself to be regarded as an arithmetical concept, to be set alongside other beings, to be combined with other objects, or to be used as a means, even for the most sacred goal. The goal is the person itself; personhood is the total fulfillment of being, the catholic expression of its nature. This tendency of the person, like freedom, is the 'two--edged sword' of existence. For applied to man it leads to the denial of others, to egocentrism, to the destruction of social life. As in the case of freedom, so with the unique and hypostatic nature of the person, a relativisation appears to be indispensible if chaos is to be avoided. Thus uniqueness is relativised in social life, and man becomes--in a greater or lesser degree but nevertheless assusredly so-- a useful 'object,' a 'combination,' a persona. But it is precisely this which constitutes the tragic aspect of the person. Diffused today throughout all forms of social life is the intense search for personal identity."
John D. Zizioulas in Being As Communion:Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY,St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002. p.47.
In other words, once we start denying the uniqueness of the human individual person, we risk objectifying people and only seen her and/or him as another cog in the machine, only useful for our own objectives. That would make all forms of essentialism and stereotypes dehumanizing, huh?
May 13, 2009
The Make Over for this blog
Just an update:
I have been considering for quite a while to change the template of this blog to make it aesthetically pleasing. The picture at the top is a saint in Greek Orthodoxy named Moses the Black or Moses the Ethiopian who lived as a slave at one point. I think that he is symbolic of the work I am trying to do, understanding the Chrisitian religion in light of imperial social structures such as slavery.
In addition, the title of the blog has changed to ECHOMEN ELPIDA which is greek for, We Have Hope! I thought it made sense given the url's namesake. I also have been wanting to, ever since I started reading and writing in Biblical Greek to re-do the title of this blog in something greek, like the peeps over at Euangelion and Koinonia as well as Epignoskein and Pisteuomen. You can just call me a copycat, w/e!
I HOPE (elpidzo) you all enjoy! :)
I have been considering for quite a while to change the template of this blog to make it aesthetically pleasing. The picture at the top is a saint in Greek Orthodoxy named Moses the Black or Moses the Ethiopian who lived as a slave at one point. I think that he is symbolic of the work I am trying to do, understanding the Chrisitian religion in light of imperial social structures such as slavery.
In addition, the title of the blog has changed to ECHOMEN ELPIDA which is greek for, We Have Hope! I thought it made sense given the url's namesake. I also have been wanting to, ever since I started reading and writing in Biblical Greek to re-do the title of this blog in something greek, like the peeps over at Euangelion and Koinonia as well as Epignoskein and Pisteuomen. You can just call me a copycat, w/e!
I HOPE (elpidzo) you all enjoy! :)
May 11, 2009
Between The Patriot's Bible and the movie The American President: The Futilitiy of Study Bibles
The conversation between Lewis Rothschild and President Andrew Shepherd:
"Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I’ve ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.
President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-…
Lewis Rothschild: They don’t have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.”
Recently, on the biblio/theo-blogosphere, there has been some outrage expressed at the latest study Bible published by Thomas Nelson called The Patriot's Bible. Pastor Greg Boyd was so disturbed by the nationalism and violence promoted in this book that he has begun to write a series about it on his blog in addition to a book review on it. My friends Celucien and T.C. authors of Christ My Righteousness and Theological Graffitti have shared their concerns for the Patriot's Bible as well.
I believe that the real problem is not so much American Christian nationalism, per se, but that our dilemma starts with the fact that most North American Christians do not know the difference between the true religion of Jesus the Messiah and the American brand. Like Lewis Rothschild shouts to President Shepherd, that the people do not have a choice and so that they will listen to whoever offers the truth. Rather than being offered Gospel Truth by religious educators and preachers, lay persons, thirsty for knowledge and hungry for truth, run to their closest Christian bookstores and buy the latest, most fashionable study Bible. There are markets for study bibles for teenagers, women, men, African Americans, followers of Joel Olsteen, etc. What's next? A study bible for Democrats and another for Republicans? I forgot, they already exist, the New Revised Standard Version (D) and the English Standard Version (R).
President Andrew Shepherd is also right. The people when they are thirsty do not know the difference between sand and water. North American Christian education ministries have failed to equip the saints to be discerning between the truth and untruth. So, we should not be surprised when a book called, "The Patriots Bible" comes off the presses. What needs to happen is that alternative voices need to begin to speak out, to put to shame the liars and the false prophets. Otherwise, I can start doing research for the creation of the Libertarian Study Bible. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
"Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I’ve ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.
President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-…
Lewis Rothschild: They don’t have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.”
Recently, on the biblio/theo-blogosphere, there has been some outrage expressed at the latest study Bible published by Thomas Nelson called The Patriot's Bible. Pastor Greg Boyd was so disturbed by the nationalism and violence promoted in this book that he has begun to write a series about it on his blog in addition to a book review on it. My friends Celucien and T.C. authors of Christ My Righteousness and Theological Graffitti have shared their concerns for the Patriot's Bible as well.
I believe that the real problem is not so much American Christian nationalism, per se, but that our dilemma starts with the fact that most North American Christians do not know the difference between the true religion of Jesus the Messiah and the American brand. Like Lewis Rothschild shouts to President Shepherd, that the people do not have a choice and so that they will listen to whoever offers the truth. Rather than being offered Gospel Truth by religious educators and preachers, lay persons, thirsty for knowledge and hungry for truth, run to their closest Christian bookstores and buy the latest, most fashionable study Bible. There are markets for study bibles for teenagers, women, men, African Americans, followers of Joel Olsteen, etc. What's next? A study bible for Democrats and another for Republicans? I forgot, they already exist, the New Revised Standard Version (D) and the English Standard Version (R).
President Andrew Shepherd is also right. The people when they are thirsty do not know the difference between sand and water. North American Christian education ministries have failed to equip the saints to be discerning between the truth and untruth. So, we should not be surprised when a book called, "The Patriots Bible" comes off the presses. What needs to happen is that alternative voices need to begin to speak out, to put to shame the liars and the false prophets. Otherwise, I can start doing research for the creation of the Libertarian Study Bible. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
May 7, 2009
MY FIFTIETH POST!!!- Why I had a hard time organizing my library and upcoming posts
I just finished my final examination as a Master of Divinity student on Monday at around noon. Tuesday, I made a futile attempt to organize all of my books in my library. However, this was very difficult for me to do. Why? Because of interdisciplinary studies and the scholarship of the 21st century. Where does John Howard Yoder’s The Politics Of Jesus belong? Does he belong in my Christian Peacemaking section? Theology? Biblical studies? Does Cain Hope Felder’s Stony The Road We Trod have to be placed in my work about Black Church Studies, or in my recently created Biblical Studies section? I could not decide where most of my books belonged, so I left some of the works in the status quo. It is so confusing, even for Reinhold Neibuhr’s Moral Man And Immoral Society, History? Ethics? Theology? Empire Studies? Nothing is as simple as it seems. Labels have very little meaning in a “postmodern” world. Or maybe, it is a good thing that scholars are beginning to converse with scholars from other fields. We can no longer sit on our little islands and think that religious studies has nothing to say to economics, or that international law has nothing to contribute to biblical studies. Our world is shrinking and this calls for more conversation if everyone is live interdependently and independently as a community as well as individuals.
SOME UPCOMING POSTS:
1. Only God Can Judge Me?- a sermon I wrote for Dr. Lozada’s Johannine Literature course
2. Honor the U.S. Constitution: Reading 1st Peter 2:17 while Living in a Democratic-Republic- A post looking at traditional understandings of 1st Peter 2:17 while engaging the historical context of the passage. [I owe this one to CJ from a while ago, but I have been working on it]
3. English Bible Translations and Empire- a series looking at the imperialist leanings of some English translations of the Bible that have real-life implications for those who are colonized. Starting with the New International Version. [I have been reflecting on this topic and my friend Adam has encouraged me to pursue it].
4. My Biases- Along with my friend Chad, I am posting some of my favorite things and ideological preferences such as politics, religion, and positions on various issues so I cannot be ever accused of trying to be neutral. [Thanks Chad for this idea].
5. An Anabaptist/Libertarian response to N.T. Wright's post on a stronger United Nations
SOME UPCOMING POSTS:
1. Only God Can Judge Me?- a sermon I wrote for Dr. Lozada’s Johannine Literature course
2. Honor the U.S. Constitution: Reading 1st Peter 2:17 while Living in a Democratic-Republic- A post looking at traditional understandings of 1st Peter 2:17 while engaging the historical context of the passage. [I owe this one to CJ from a while ago, but I have been working on it]
3. English Bible Translations and Empire- a series looking at the imperialist leanings of some English translations of the Bible that have real-life implications for those who are colonized. Starting with the New International Version. [I have been reflecting on this topic and my friend Adam has encouraged me to pursue it].
4. My Biases- Along with my friend Chad, I am posting some of my favorite things and ideological preferences such as politics, religion, and positions on various issues so I cannot be ever accused of trying to be neutral. [Thanks Chad for this idea].
5. An Anabaptist/Libertarian response to N.T. Wright's post on a stronger United Nations
Apr 23, 2009
Don't Worry, Be Happy!: the Death of Christianity?
Beginning in the 1960's, religious scholars note many so called experts who proclaimed the "death of god," or at least the deconstruction of the Enlightenment construction of the divinity as we knew him. Today, a new group of experts are cheering on the death of the evangelical wing of the American church.
Al Mohler
Michael Spencer
Jon Meacham
(btw: does death have to be the prevailing metaphor when it comes to the reform of religious institution? does that mean that Americans suffer from a narcissism grounded in a fear of death, the unknown, non-being?) It is funny that we used to see the church/synagogue/mosque/religious institution as the lone moral authority to direct public policy and social norms. Now, we have gossip columnists telling us how we should debate states' rights and how we should practice religious and civil rites.
If we could perhaps try to escape this metaphor of "reform/revolution as death" and think in particularly Christian terms of resurrection and new life. In a sermon I gave for Brite's Black and Womanist Theologies course a couple of years ago, I said that "Human tradition may die with humanity,but the Resurrected Messiah and his tradition are forever." What exactly did I mean by this? It means that our human construction of what religious institutions may look like or function in society may be subject to change at any given moment in history, but that Jesus of Nazareth, the Firstborn of the New Creation (Colossians 1), remains Master of the Universe in every instant, both now and in eternity.
The apostle Paul encountered our LORD on the road to Damascus. And as he confesses to the assembly in Galatia (Gal 1:11-16), he loved his religious tradition more than people, or even the God who created them. We all have seen the type. Those religious people, like I once was, who closed themselves off to those who think differently than they do. Yet, Paul was transformed by seeing the Resurrected Messiah with his own two eyes; this encounter was life-changing. Paul had seen the new life God was making available for all people groups. No longer is there an us versus them, but a royal WE (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11)! We should rejoice and celebrate that Christianity may be changing because the Empire of God is invading our human space once more that we may experience the life-giving power of the Triune God.
For further reading on why we should not mourn but rejoice, see my friend T.C. Moore's post on Gregory Boyd's assessment of the current "crisis."
Al Mohler
Michael Spencer
Jon Meacham
(btw: does death have to be the prevailing metaphor when it comes to the reform of religious institution? does that mean that Americans suffer from a narcissism grounded in a fear of death, the unknown, non-being?) It is funny that we used to see the church/synagogue/mosque/religious institution as the lone moral authority to direct public policy and social norms. Now, we have gossip columnists telling us how we should debate states' rights and how we should practice religious and civil rites.
If we could perhaps try to escape this metaphor of "reform/revolution as death" and think in particularly Christian terms of resurrection and new life. In a sermon I gave for Brite's Black and Womanist Theologies course a couple of years ago, I said that "Human tradition may die with humanity,but the Resurrected Messiah and his tradition are forever." What exactly did I mean by this? It means that our human construction of what religious institutions may look like or function in society may be subject to change at any given moment in history, but that Jesus of Nazareth, the Firstborn of the New Creation (Colossians 1), remains Master of the Universe in every instant, both now and in eternity.
The apostle Paul encountered our LORD on the road to Damascus. And as he confesses to the assembly in Galatia (Gal 1:11-16), he loved his religious tradition more than people, or even the God who created them. We all have seen the type. Those religious people, like I once was, who closed themselves off to those who think differently than they do. Yet, Paul was transformed by seeing the Resurrected Messiah with his own two eyes; this encounter was life-changing. Paul had seen the new life God was making available for all people groups. No longer is there an us versus them, but a royal WE (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11)! We should rejoice and celebrate that Christianity may be changing because the Empire of God is invading our human space once more that we may experience the life-giving power of the Triune God.
For further reading on why we should not mourn but rejoice, see my friend T.C. Moore's post on Gregory Boyd's assessment of the current "crisis."
Apr 21, 2009
Only God is Good: A Response to Mrllgoode
The second half of Mrllgoode’s comments in response to my post on Clement of Alexandria appear as follows:
“ The Most Hon. Elijah Muhammad teaches that partial and half truths are worst outright lies, tell the truth Jesus was a jew. I was born and raised a christian but in essence it is the cult of chirst. Please tell me where in the bible that the great man Jesus told the people to pray to him or worship him, do he not say "that their is none good but the father". “
Mrllgoode, you asked me to tell you, “where in the bible that the great man Jesus told the people to pray to him or worship, do he not say “that there is non good but the father” I will answer your question, Mrllgoode,but Jesus never said, “there none good but the father.” That is a false assumption where we are reading our patriarchal western preference for referring to god as a him when in the original greek text of the two gospels you are quoting, the word “father” (patros in the greek) does not appear.
Come, let us reason together: here are the quotes that you are referring to:
Mark 10:18 (NIV)- "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone
Luke 18:19 (NIV)- "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
In neither of these passages, nor in the chapters that these verses are found in, do we even find the noun “father” in the context to referring to the divine. So, from the beginning of your arguments, your misquotation of the New Testament reveals a weakness.
Now, why would Jesus say, “No one is good—except God alone.” In both contexts of these passages, Jesus is talking to the a rich man, who asks Jesus “How can I enter eternal life?” (Luke 18:18 & Mark 10:17 respectively). We cannot draw any conclusions about what Jesus is saying about himself simply by quoting him whenever we feel like he is saying something that may or may not agree with our religious beliefs. That is called proof-texting and it does real damage to the author, the story, and the person who is at the center of the narrative; in this case I am referring to Jesus the Messiah. What one could do in this situation, since these are not a simple passages to understand, is to examine these passages in light of their place in the respected chapters they are found in (Luke 18 and Mark 10). Now, was Jesus talking about himself as he is answering this rich man’s question? No, he is only, in the context of his conversation with the rich man (Mark 10:17-22 & Luke 18:18-25) teaching the rich man, the audience, and then his disciples, how to enter into the kingdom of God (what I call the empire of God, in the greek, basileus tou theou can mean empire, commonwealth, reign of god/the divine).
Now, the authors of Mark and Luke, are trying to create a picture of Jesus and the 10th chapter of Mark’s Gospel as well as the 18th chapter of Luke’s Gospel are definitely portraying Jesus as divine. How do I come to this conclusion, you may ask?
Well, I will provide on example from Mark’s gospel, which can just as readily be applied to Luke’s gospel as well. The author of Mark in Chapter 10 does something really interesting, where he contrasts a rich man mid-way through the chapter who is exposed as an unbeliever (Mark 10:22) in opposition to a poor blind man Bartimaeus who believes in Jesus and receives salvation (Mark 10:52) [The same story can be found in Luke 18, refer to Luke 18:23 versus Luke 18:42-43].
Now, there is a huge difference in the way that the rich man addresses Jesus and the way that the blind beggar approaches the LORD. The rich man calls Jesus “good teacher,” in the greek the noun for teacher is didaskale. The rich man see Jesus as just one teacher among many of those who hung out in the Jerusalem temple. There is nothing special about a teacher who sits around and debates without a divine mission. Even Nichodemus in John 3 recognized that Jesus was a teacher sent from God. Now, if we fast forward to Mark 10:51, we will see that the blind beggar refers to Jesus as Rabbi, which means either Great One or Teacher. At first, there would seem to be nothing messianic about this title. But we must realize, like you said that Jesus was a Jew, and not only that, but a participant in Second Temple Judaism. Second Temple Judaism had a lot of diverse views when it came to the Messiah. The Messiah was seen as a Davidic King, the pre-existent Son of Man found in Daniel 7, but the most neglected of these images is the Aaronic view of the Messiah. The Aaronic view of the Messiah saw the Messiah as a priestly-figure who would teach Jews how to worship God and, according to the tradition found in the last seven chapters of the book of Ezekiel, the priest serves as a high priest (or prince, but not a king) who makes sacrifices in the new temple. I have argued that Rabbi is a messianic title, and not just a religious title for a Jewish leader The Priestly View of the Messiah. So, the blind man, at the end of Mark 10 confesses Jesus as the priestly Messiah coming to teach us how to worship and live. Therefore, both Mark 10 and Luke 18, with their strong emphasis on the Son of Man traditions (Mark 10:33, 37, 45 and Luke 18:8, 31) as well as the royal title of Son of David (Luke 18:38-39, Mark 10:47-48) along with the messianic title of Rabbi [as opposed to being called didaskle in the greek] (Mark 10:51), we can be confident that Jesus’ divinity, as well as his divine mission as the Chosen One, the Messiah and Savior of the world is affirmed in these two passages.
“ The Most Hon. Elijah Muhammad teaches that partial and half truths are worst outright lies, tell the truth Jesus was a jew. I was born and raised a christian but in essence it is the cult of chirst. Please tell me where in the bible that the great man Jesus told the people to pray to him or worship him, do he not say "that their is none good but the father". “
Mrllgoode, you asked me to tell you, “where in the bible that the great man Jesus told the people to pray to him or worship, do he not say “that there is non good but the father” I will answer your question, Mrllgoode,but Jesus never said, “there none good but the father.” That is a false assumption where we are reading our patriarchal western preference for referring to god as a him when in the original greek text of the two gospels you are quoting, the word “father” (patros in the greek) does not appear.
Come, let us reason together: here are the quotes that you are referring to:
Mark 10:18 (NIV)- "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone
Luke 18:19 (NIV)- "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
In neither of these passages, nor in the chapters that these verses are found in, do we even find the noun “father” in the context to referring to the divine. So, from the beginning of your arguments, your misquotation of the New Testament reveals a weakness.
Now, why would Jesus say, “No one is good—except God alone.” In both contexts of these passages, Jesus is talking to the a rich man, who asks Jesus “How can I enter eternal life?” (Luke 18:18 & Mark 10:17 respectively). We cannot draw any conclusions about what Jesus is saying about himself simply by quoting him whenever we feel like he is saying something that may or may not agree with our religious beliefs. That is called proof-texting and it does real damage to the author, the story, and the person who is at the center of the narrative; in this case I am referring to Jesus the Messiah. What one could do in this situation, since these are not a simple passages to understand, is to examine these passages in light of their place in the respected chapters they are found in (Luke 18 and Mark 10). Now, was Jesus talking about himself as he is answering this rich man’s question? No, he is only, in the context of his conversation with the rich man (Mark 10:17-22 & Luke 18:18-25) teaching the rich man, the audience, and then his disciples, how to enter into the kingdom of God (what I call the empire of God, in the greek, basileus tou theou can mean empire, commonwealth, reign of god/the divine).
Now, the authors of Mark and Luke, are trying to create a picture of Jesus and the 10th chapter of Mark’s Gospel as well as the 18th chapter of Luke’s Gospel are definitely portraying Jesus as divine. How do I come to this conclusion, you may ask?
Well, I will provide on example from Mark’s gospel, which can just as readily be applied to Luke’s gospel as well. The author of Mark in Chapter 10 does something really interesting, where he contrasts a rich man mid-way through the chapter who is exposed as an unbeliever (Mark 10:22) in opposition to a poor blind man Bartimaeus who believes in Jesus and receives salvation (Mark 10:52) [The same story can be found in Luke 18, refer to Luke 18:23 versus Luke 18:42-43].
Now, there is a huge difference in the way that the rich man addresses Jesus and the way that the blind beggar approaches the LORD. The rich man calls Jesus “good teacher,” in the greek the noun for teacher is didaskale. The rich man see Jesus as just one teacher among many of those who hung out in the Jerusalem temple. There is nothing special about a teacher who sits around and debates without a divine mission. Even Nichodemus in John 3 recognized that Jesus was a teacher sent from God. Now, if we fast forward to Mark 10:51, we will see that the blind beggar refers to Jesus as Rabbi, which means either Great One or Teacher. At first, there would seem to be nothing messianic about this title. But we must realize, like you said that Jesus was a Jew, and not only that, but a participant in Second Temple Judaism. Second Temple Judaism had a lot of diverse views when it came to the Messiah. The Messiah was seen as a Davidic King, the pre-existent Son of Man found in Daniel 7, but the most neglected of these images is the Aaronic view of the Messiah. The Aaronic view of the Messiah saw the Messiah as a priestly-figure who would teach Jews how to worship God and, according to the tradition found in the last seven chapters of the book of Ezekiel, the priest serves as a high priest (or prince, but not a king) who makes sacrifices in the new temple. I have argued that Rabbi is a messianic title, and not just a religious title for a Jewish leader The Priestly View of the Messiah. So, the blind man, at the end of Mark 10 confesses Jesus as the priestly Messiah coming to teach us how to worship and live. Therefore, both Mark 10 and Luke 18, with their strong emphasis on the Son of Man traditions (Mark 10:33, 37, 45 and Luke 18:8, 31) as well as the royal title of Son of David (Luke 18:38-39, Mark 10:47-48) along with the messianic title of Rabbi [as opposed to being called didaskle in the greek] (Mark 10:51), we can be confident that Jesus’ divinity, as well as his divine mission as the Chosen One, the Messiah and Savior of the world is affirmed in these two passages.
Apr 19, 2009
Apr 18, 2009
Working Postcolonial Theology Bibliography
My friend Joseph Duggan wrote a working bibliography for works on post-colonial theology for the Postcolonial Theology Network on facebook. I may create my own annotated bibligraphy to share in the near future. I will keep you updated.
Working Post-colonial Theology Bibliography
For those in biblical studies, and interested in Ancient Near Eastern works, my friend Mike over at Fox's Wanderings made quite an impressive bibliography on ANE studies, the Hebrew Bible, and the idea of covenant. The link is posted below.
ANE Covenant bibliography
Working Post-colonial Theology Bibliography
For those in biblical studies, and interested in Ancient Near Eastern works, my friend Mike over at Fox's Wanderings made quite an impressive bibliography on ANE studies, the Hebrew Bible, and the idea of covenant. The link is posted below.
ANE Covenant bibliography
Apr 17, 2009
Leaving the Left Behind Series Behind
Michael Gorman has written the general and legitimate criticism against the Left Behind Series (and dispensationalism).
I basically agree with him, and that was before I learned how to read the biblical Greek in the Unveiling of God to John of Patmos (the book of Revelation).
Gorman's post
I basically agree with him, and that was before I learned how to read the biblical Greek in the Unveiling of God to John of Patmos (the book of Revelation).
Gorman's post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)