Culture

Biblical Seminary has created a couple of videos for advertisement for the school. I really appreciated this one because it really grasps the nature of the times and the need for a “missional” Church in the West.

Stage 4. Post 3. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision (2006)

Wright spends the majority of the second half of the book on exegesis of Pauline epistles. Due to Wright’s experience in exegesis, it is much more appropriate for us to reflect on his conclusions from his observations rather than the exegesis itself. First, Justification is about the one single family of God. Wright states, “Justification…always has in mind God’s declaration of membership, and that this always referred specifically to the coming together of Jews and Gentiles in faithful membership of the Christian family” (p. 116). The biblical idea of justification is comforting to all humanity regardless of culture, race, or gender. In this sense, Galatians 3 is at the heart of justification. Christians across the whole world should declare that, through the work of Jesus, everyone is invited to be part of God’s people.

Second, justification is based on the life of the Christian. In the future, God will justify those who have shown by their actions that they are part of God’s people. This is slightly discomforting, but Wright states, “Yes, ‘good works’ will undoubtedly include ‘moral behavior.’ But Paul is more interested…about the face of the church in the world, about Christians shining in the world as lights in a dark place” (p. 171). In this sense, Romans 2 is at the heart of justification, as Wright explains, “Possession of the Torah…will not be enough; it will be doing it that counts” (p. 184). The Christian must examine his or her life to be sure it is filled with the fruit of the Spirit. One must continually evaluate if he or she is a light to the world. In this sense, justification is a call to holiness.

Third, justification is all about God. As Wright puts it, “God’s oracles, God’s faithfulness, God’s truth, God’s vindication, God’s victory, God’s righteousness, God’s justice, God’s judgment, God’s truth (again) and ultimately (Romans 3:7) God’s glory” (p. 199). This gives the Christian hope since it is based on the faithfulness of Christ (p. 203). Jesus Christ was the representative for God to the world, where Israel failed to do so. As Wright correctly states, “Through the representative Messiah…the result is that, though in his forbearance God had previously ‘passed over’ sins, not dealing with them as they deserved, the cosmic moral deficit has now been put right, displaying God’s faithfulness and justice to the world” (p. 204). Thus, justification is all about God’s faithfulness to his covenant to put the world the back to rights, as he so desires it.

Fourth, justification is by faith. One must not think that Wright is proposing works-righteousness. One is justified in the present by his or her faith. One might ask, “Who are God’s people?” To this, Wright responds, “They are those who keep the Torah—but whose Torah-keeping consists of faith” (p. 211; emphasis original). Faith is the basis on which the future verdict is shown in the present. In this way, faith carries a sense of faithfulness. N.T. Wright states, “The present verdict gives the assurance that the future verdict will match it; the Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived” (p. 251). Justification is seen in the present by faith in the future action of God.

Ultimately, in my opinion, N.T. Wright’s view of justification carries much more weight than the one proposed by John Piper and others. Wright’s view of justification carries a sense of mission, holiness, and faith. As far as mission is concerned, it understands that God, through Jesus, is calling all people, regardless of lines of demarcation, to himself. A hurting, divided world needs to hear the message of reconciliation. Wright’s view of justification carries a sense of holiness, in that, it understands that God is concerned if his people are properly representing him. Unfortunately, the traditional Protestant view shrinks justification into individual salvation, which many believe is granted based on mental ascent to a set of doctrines. If this is the case, one simply “mentally ascends” and has no need for moral transformation. Lastly, the biblical view of justification relies heavily on faith—faith in the work of God through Jesus Christ. As stated before, it’s all about God. The Church must never forget its reliance on God’s faithfulness. When the Church is unfaithful (as it often is), God remains faithful to his covenant. Therefore, Wright concludes his book by reminding his readers of a crucial point, “The Risen Son is the fixed point in whose orbit we move, the one who holds his people by his power and sustains them by his love, the one to whom, with the Father and Spirit, be all love and all glory in his age and in the age to come” (p. 252). The Church must never forget its call to mission, holiness, and faith, and, if it holds on to the proper view of justification, it will be followed closely be these things. Score 9 out of 10

Do you agree with me that NTW’s view carries more weight? Or am I missing something here?

+++++++

Wright, N.T. (2009). Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. IVP: Downers Grove.

Buy: Amazon.com

Stage 3. Post 1. The Last Word.

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

I don’t think I know what someone means when they say they believe the Scripture is authoritative. I suppose I imagine Scripture on a pedestal, looking down on us from above, and we just look up at it and bow before its verses. I know that’s strange, but I think a lot of Christians don’t know what it means to say that Scripture is authoritative. I usually hear some type of rhetoric about how, “We read Scripture, and we believe it so if you disagree with us, you disagree with Scripture.” Somehow I find that to be unhealthy, and it sounds more like you are authoritative rather than Scripture, and I don’t think you want that type of pressure. So, when N.T. Wright explains, “The phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture’” (p. 23; emphasis original), we see the proper understanding of Scripture’s (I capitalize “Scripture” unlike our friends across the Atlantic) authority. Scripture simply is used by God as a vehicle through which he expresses his authority.

The Last Word (2005)

In many circles, the “literal” sense of Scripture is seen as “authoritative.” Not many today would suggest that a way of determining how Scripture is authoritative would lean on the “four sense” interpretive scheme or a highly allegorical interpretation. NTW points out, though, that “when the Reformers insisted on the ‘literal’ sense of scripture, they were referring to the first of the four medieval senses.” As NTW continues, “For them, the ‘literal’ sense was the sense that the first writers intended” (p. 73; emphasis original). With this being said, if a passage is meant to be figurative, the literal sense would be figurative. For instance, the Reformers challenged the Catholic view of the elements of the Eucharist. Yes, Christ did say, “This is my body,” but this is in fact meant to be figurative. A literal reading turns out to be the Catholic view of transubstantiation. Thus,

We need to note carefully that to invoke “the literal meaning of scripture,” hoping thereby to settle a point by echoing the phraseology of the Reformers, could be valid only if we meant, not “literal” as opposed to metaphorical, but “literal” (which might include metaphorical, if that, arguably, was the original sense) as opposed to the three other medieval senses (allegorical, anagogical, and/or moral) (pp.73-74; emphasis original).

Unlike many Christians who have an aversion to metaphor, metaphor is often used in Scripture and the intent of the authors could be so. For instance, if Revelation is supposed to be metaphorical, then there is no need to think we are abandoning the literal sense when we interpret it metaphorically.

I do have to challenge Wright on a couple of things. Although if he were face-to-face with me, he would probably wipe the floor with me. However, the benefit of a blog is I can say whatever I want. First, I felt Wright was a little harsh on the four medieval senses. Concerning the four senses, he states, “The trouble with all of this is of course the lack of control. Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion” (p. 70). Now, I do lean towards the literal sense, but I think the four senses can take Scripture from a “static” book to a “dynamic” one. Control we cannot, but there is great beauty in this style of interpretation. But we can’t even control the literal readings that some people come up with. And who’s to say that the Holy Spirit cannot open such senses to the reader?

This leads to my second “hang up” (so to speak). NTW disagrees with the more supposedly “Catholic” position of tradition over Scripture. He states, “Those who transmit, collect and distribute the message are not in the same league as those who write it in the first place” (p. 63). In a sense, I agree. However, I have explained something similar elsewhere, but, even if Paul or Moses were here with us today, they are merely one voice among many. Now, Paul and Moses are taken more seriously since they were the authors of their supposed texts, but the Spirit can lead the Church to a new, fresh meaning for today. I know this is controversial, and I don’t have time to unpack it all here. I would mostly agree with Wright, and I wouldn’t dismiss him (as all these posts on his works will show I admire him). I simply would like to ask him questions concerning these things.

Tomorrow, I will talk about how Scripture can and should be used today. Specifically, NTW’s “five act play” model will be talked about. I, in fact, have used it often, and I have heard it used in other books. However, thus far, I have to admit that I find NTW’s proposals very helpful. We have to think about the authority of Scripture differently, and part of that task is to unpack what we mean by that and how we intend to use its authority. Wright helps us do that.

How have you heard people use defend their positions with the “authority of Scripture”?

How do you feel one should come about the proper interpretation of Scripture? Is there any value to the four senses view?

ABC's Lost

I must first admit that I never watched Lost, other than, a few episodes. I never got into it, and, frankly, I was one of the naysayers who suggested that Lost is simply an amped-up version of  Gilligan’s Island. However, as the series Lost has concluded, and I have conducted a very, non-scientific poll to gauge the reaction to the last episode (i.e., series finale). It appears to be a 50-50 split–one side absolutely loved the finale and one side loathed it (which, frankly, the reaction makes me question Lost’s marketing team, but that’s for another day).

As stated, I never got into the series; partially because I had class on Tuesday nights for the past three years. But I spent countless Wednesdays hearing people talk about the episode from the night before. Another equally talked about show was 24, which I spent countless Tuesdays hearing people talk about how Jack died, then, didn’t, then found out that his lover who he once thought was dead is not, and then CTU blows up, and then Jack gets angry and stops terrorism in all forms and from all people groups–Arabic, Russian, East German, Gorbachev’s cronies, unpatriotic Americans, and even the patriotic ones.

Regardless, I thought about this today, What if Plato watched Lost? What if he spent all his mental energy trying to figure out what was going on in Lost? Would “The Cave” have ever been written? Or would it end with a strange conclusion like the images on the wall are simply shadows of another reality (oh wait…)?

OK. Better example…What if the apostle Paul watched Lost? Would “Romans” have been written? At least, we can agree that it would have been shorter and more ambiguous than it already appears to be. What if he watched 24? There would be less “Therefore’s” (i.e., what is it there for?) at the beginning of his thoughts and instead the chapters would begin with, Previously on the matter of justification… And “Philemon” would have been written differently because Paul would have told Philemon to accept Onesimus and to live by the rules of freedom in Christ by saying, “The rules are what make us better.” To which Philemon would have responded, “Not today.” And then, Onesimus would not have been accepted back. Ugly.

It appears to me that we spend a lot of our mental energy on TV. That scares me a little (or a lot). I am all for hobbies, entertainment, etc. But what would it be like if we took the same time we used watching TV and talking about it for better, more constructive things?

What do you think?

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright’s a scholar, but he’s also a pastor. I knew he was a pastor, but it took this past weekend’s “Jesus, Paul and the New Testament: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright” for this to become a reality for me. On Friday night, N.T. Wright (NTW) spoke about one of his areas of expertise–Jesus, who you may have heard about on this blog. NTW spoke about the Greek words that Jesus and Peter use for the word “love.” In John 21:15-17, after Jesus’ resurrection, he speaks to Peter, and the Gospel states,

¹⁵When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love (Greek = agape/αγαπας) me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love (Gk. philes/φιλω) you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

¹⁶Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love (Gk. agape love) me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love (Gk. philes love) you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

¹⁷ The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love (Gk. philes love) me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (Gk. philes love) you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

If you notice, Jesus twice asks Peter if Peter loves him with agape-love. Peter twice responds, “Lord, you know I do love you with philes love.”  Peter offers Jesus philes love, which is friend-love, but Jesus first wants agape love from Peter. Peter just cannot go that far. He can only give Jesus friend-love. What is interesting, Jesus doesn’t keep pestering Peter waiting for Peter to finally respond, “Yes! Lord! Fine! I love you with agape-love!” Peter couldn’t go that far. So what does Jesus do? He comes down to Peter’s level and meets Peter where he is. In a sense Jesus says, “Ok, Peter. You can only offer me friend-love right now. Ok, then, do you friend-love me?”

Is that awesome?! Jesus comes down to Peter’s level and accepts what Peter can give at that moment.

NTW ends this thought on a note like this, “Maybe there is someone here like Peter today. You can’t give Jesus everything, but only something. Jesus will meet you there.” If you ask me, that reveals the pastoral heart of N.T. Wright, which is what I needed to hear. I have a lot of “head knowledge” from him. I’ve read The New Testament and the People of God. I’ve listened to him talk about Paul’s view of the afterlife. But I really needed something to cut me to the core. And NTW provided that for me this past Friday night.

So, from now on, when people ask me, “Why do you like N.T. Wright so much?” I may just respond with this story.

+++++++

You can read my notes from the majority of the sessions here.

You can listen to and/or watch most of the sessions here.

+++++++

[This is the finale of my response to Clemens Sedmak's Doing Local Theology. Below is my personal reflection on what he has put forth. You can read part 1 here and part 2 here. My overall score of the book is at the end of this post.]

homeless woman

Clemens Sedmak’s Doing Local Theology deserves both negative and positive reflections. First, the overall writing of Sedmak’s book is at times repetitive and slightly monotonous. Also, when culture-specific theology is emphasized, everyone is a theologian. This is at times important, but the global Church does not always benefit from everyone practice theology. For instance and although Sedmak would resist such an example, no one outside of Nazi-sympathizers desires Adolf Hitler to be a theologian, even though in some cases he was. If one emphasizes cultural-specific theology, this is the danger.

However, even if the abuse of cultural-specific theology is possible, it should not be neglected, and Sedmak is correct that “little theologies” are incredibly important to the life of the Church. “Little theologies” can be used to touch the life of a single mother more than a “big theology” like Barth’s Church Dogmatics. Little theologies can help the homeless man in my neighborhood more than a big theology like Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Although “little theologians” will be less known, their grassroots influence cannot be overemphasized.

(more…)

[This is part 2 of my response to Clemen's Sedmak's Doing Local Theology. Read part 1 here.]

The majority of Doing Local Theology focuses on what Sedmak calls “little theologies,” as he defines, “To translate the big concepts of our theological tradition into our life experience is to create ‘little theologies’” (p. 46). Much of “little theologies” is understanding tradition. As Sedmak states, “Theologians are accountable to a community, a community that was there before them and will be there after they are gone. Chesterton talked about tradition as democracy including the dead, giving a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves any longer.” In this dialogue with tradition, the theologian not only receives a sense of identity but also respects other cultures in other contexts (p. 53).

Although theology must respect tradition, “the theological tradition has to be reappropriated [sic]” (p. 54). Theology must be done with people in mind, and the theologian must decide how a certain concept is expressed within a local culture. The Bible is the primary source for where Christians engage tradition. As one reads the biblical text, he or she must keep in mind, “Everybody who reads the Bible has an agenda,” and, due to this, Sedmak explains, “The Bible has to be reappropriated [sic], taken into the reality of the people” (p. 57). In this way, tradition is contextualized.

(more…)

[Many of you responded to my request to help me choose a book for my seminary class, and the one that received the most votes was Clemens Sedmak's Doing Local Theology. I have since wrote a response to the book for my class, and the first part of the response is below.]

Doing Local Theology

Clemens Sedmak in his book Doing Local Theology: A Guide for Artisans of a New Humanity uses fifty theses to discuss the importance of understanding the surrounding culture as the starting point for the task of theology. He proposes that theology is not universal but local and thus comes in many forms. In this sense, everyone is a theologian since theology addresses our deepest questions and desires. Sedmak’s proposal for the importance of local theology is helpful for the missional church, which seeks to understand its culture in order to speak within it rather than to it or above it.

(more…)

example of a head covering

If you read 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, you will quickly see the controversy for our contemporary culture. I was asked by my professor at Biblical Seminary to give some initial thoughts on this passage. Now, these are initial thoughts without consulting commentaries, lexicons, and so forth. However, I’d like to hear your thoughts on what I have proposed in the comments section. My thoughts are below:

Paul appears to have the book of Genesis’ creation narratives in mind throughout this section. From Genesis we see as man (adam) is connected to the ground (adama) so woman is connected to man and all things are connected to the Creator. Thus, there appears to be an interconnectedness of humanity, not only with the ground, but with one another and God. From an ethical standpoint, it appears Genesis should lead us to recognize our interconnectedness as human beings (and with creation and God). One’s actions are not independent from the rest of creation. In other words, we don’t live our lives in a vacuum…

(more…)

Theology

We’ve explored two specific marks of the missional church over three different posts. This leads us to the last mark of the missional church — a theologically educated laity. As one approaches the general laity in his or her congregation, he or she can quickly assess whether or not the local church has properly served its congregants by providing some type of theological education for engaging everyday life. In the trend of seeker-sensitivity, many churches have neglected theology believing that “seekers” individuals have no interest in such training. However, Tim Keller suggests that missional churches need to theologically train laity for their vocations when he explains, “In a ‘missional’ church, the laity needs theological education to ‘think Christianly’ about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness…lay people renewing and transforming the culture through distinctively Christian vocations must be lifted up as ‘real kingdom work’ and ministry along with the traditional ministry of the Word” (p. 2). As seminaries continue to close their doors and biblical illiteracy increases, theological education of laity must be of utter importance in the Church’s call to disciple-making.
The twenty-first Church continues to struggle with its identity in the current context. However, there are numerous things, which the Church should continue to focus upon, if it is to be a peculiar people. The Church has and must continue to be shaped by the Great Commission, specifically surrounding the area of discipleship. As stated, discipleship is the most important task for the twenty-first century, missional Church. In light of this, the Church must paradoxically engage culture while at the same time promoting a counter-cultural mentality. These are difficult to balance, but the Church must be able to do both. The missional Church is counter-cultural specifically by promoting multiracial communities and rejecting consumerism and nationalism. In the end, it is important that laity be theologically trained in order to participate as missional people in daily life. The Church for so long has relied on Christendom to assist its efforts for making disciples. However, Christendom overemphasized conversion and not discipleship; thus, neglecting the Great Commission. The people of Christ are to be a peculiar people. If the Church forgets this and falls into the trap of overemphasizing something like relevance, it forgets its identity. If the Church focuses strictly on conversion, it forgets its identity. If the Church becomes racially homogeneous, it forgets its identity. Thus, the Church is a peculiar people, and a peculiar people that have forgotten their identity can never fulfill Christ’s words to “make disciples of all nations.” These things must mark the missional Church in order to do ministry in a twenty-first century context.

There is not enough time to cover all the “marks” so what “marks” would you add?

+++++++

Conclusion of series on “The Marks of the Missional Church”

Read Part 1 on Discipleship here. Part 2 - (Counter)Culture 1 here. Part 3 - (Counter)Culture 2 here.

Citations for all posts:

1. DeYoung, C. P., Emerson, M. O., Yancey, G., & Kim, K. C. “All Churches Should Be Multiracial”, in Christianity Today 49 (April, 2005).
2. Emerson, M. O. & Smith, C. (2000). Divided by faith: evangelical religion and the problem of race in America. New York: Oxford.
3. Hirsh, A. (2006). The forgotten ways. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.
4. Keller, T. (2001). “The missional church.”
5. Walsh, B. J. & Keesmaat, S. C. (2004). Colossians remixed: subverting the empire. Downers Grove: IVP.