Politics

Stage 1. Post 1 of the N.T. Wright Project

Tomorrow, I will post on what makes the book praiseworthy, but until then, here’s to what I think people would say, “That’s not what St. Paul really said!”

What makes What Saint Paul Really Said so controversial?

I don’t think it’s Paul’s background that NTW provides. I don’t think it’s Paul critique of paganism or his critique of Judaism. I doubt it’s Paul’s heralding of Christ’s kingship. I would hate to think anyone would disagree with NTW’s proposal that God intends to renew/redeem humanity. However, there are a few things I do think causes NTW’s book to be so controversial.

First, the gospel. I recall a conversation I had with an opponent of Paul…err…N.T. Wright, who struggled with NTW’s understanding of the gospel. The individual said something along these lines, “How can Wright say that the gospel is not about getting saved when Paul clearly says the gospel is ‘the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes’ (Rom. 1:16)?” I must say that I hate debating because, as Oscar from The Office puts it about a debate over the “hotness” of Hilary Swank says, “That’s the thing about debating, you’re just going to get people more entrenched in the view they had in the first place.” (Side-note: I would be on the side that says Hilary Swank is not hot, but that’s just me.) However, I said to this person, “NTW does not deny that, but he says it’s more than that.”

What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

The problem, which NTW points out well, is that we have made the “gospel” mean less than what Paul intended. Many have reduced it down to mean Jesus becoming our personal Lord and Savior so I can go to heaven when I die. As Wright says correctly,

In many church circles, if you hear something like that, people will say that ‘the gospel’ has been preached…I am perfectly comfortable with what people normally mean when they say ‘the gospel’. I just don’t think it is what Paul means. In other words, I am not denying that the usual meanings are things that people ought to say, to preach about, to believe. I simply wouldn’t use the word ‘gospel’ to denote those things (p. 41).

NTW says later about Romans 1:1-5, “It is not, then, a system of how people get saved. The announcement of the gospel results in people getting saved…But ‘the gospel’ itself, strictly speaking, is the narrative proclamation of King Jesus” (p. 45; emphasis mine). NTW continues by saying the gospel “is the putting into effect of [Christ's] kingship, the decisive and authoritative summoning to allegiance…the gospel, Paul would have said, is not just about God’s power saving people. It is God’s power at work to save people” (p. 61; emphasis original). Sure, the gospel results in one’s salvation, but the term gospel means more than that–it is the proclamation that Jesus is King over all creation!

In the same way, NTW has a multifaceted view of Paul’s use of the term “Lord” for Jesus. Paul uses the term “Lord” (or Kyrios in Greek) in reference to the Jewish God, YHWH. As NTW puts it, “…Paul uses this word of Jesus…a way of aligning Jesus, personally, one-on-one, with the word Kyrios in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), where it regularly stands for YHWH, the not-to-be-pronounced Name of God” (p. 71). This is in no way controversial from an evangelical standpoint. However, NTW points out the multifaceted use of the word,

Kyrios Kaisar was the formula which said it all: Caesar is Lord. Most pagans within the Roman world were quite happy to acknowledge Caesar as Lord…Paul said: no, Kyrios Iesous Christos: Jesus Christ is Lord…there is a clear sense of confrontation with one of paganism’s treasured heartlands, the imperial ideology (p. 88).

The direct application of this is, in fact, controversial. I have written about this on numerous occasions on this blog, but American evangelicals could learn well from Paul’s confrontation with the political leader of his day, unlike where many American evangelicals have stood politically.

Last, I believe NTW’s view of “justification” makes this book controversial. Until his more recent book on the subject, NTW’s most drawn out explanation of the term was found in What Saint Paul Really Said. The phrase of controversy is dikaiosune theou, “the righteousness of God.” (I will talk about this more at length in my posts on Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision later. However, this will have to whet your appetite). NTW connects the term to its Jewish roots, which hovers around the idea of God’s faithfulness to his covenant. Thus, “‘the righteousness of God’ would have one obvious meaning: God’s own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant” (p. 96; emphasis mine). As NTW continues, “God’s own righteousness is his covenant faithfulness…[it] remains, so to speak, God’s property” (p. 99). This is controversial, in that, it negates any idea of “imputation.” God’s property is his property.

Again, “justification” is multifaceted. It involves covenantal language, law-court language, and eschatology. Covenantal, in that, God’s remaining faithful to his covenant and in this way God vindicates his actions (p. 129). Law-court, in that, God the Judge finds the defendant (i.e., human beings) “in the right.” Eschatological, in that, “It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people…it was not about ‘getting in’, or indeed about ’staying in’, as about ‘how you could tell who was in’” (p. 119). The last point is the most controversial since many have proposed since, at least, the Reformation (maybe even before) that “justification” was about how one got into the people of God. NTW suggests that it was about how to tell one is already in and who will be vindicated in the last days. (I will explain all of this more later when we get to the entire book on the subject).

The main concern for this post is to explain what appears to me to be controversial about What Saint Paul Really Said. As you can imagine, there is much more than can be covered, but this is a start. I will be proceeding in tomorrow with why I believe this book is praiseworthy.

What have you found to be controversial about this book?

Do you have a story of a “debate” about this book or Wright’s theology?

If somehow you live in a cave and were not aware, on Sunday, the US House of Representatives have passed the Senate’s bill for healthcare reform. This has caused a lot of stir (and a lot of hurdles to come); and some very angry, others very happy. On one side, I understand that people are nervous about the changes. I get that. I understand that. On the other hand, I am happy that our government has gone out and accomplished something they set out to do. But the healthcare reform bill has received a lot of backlash (from mainly Republicans but also Democrats).

(more…)

Colossians Remixed

We covered the first ethic (ethic of secession) a few days ago. The second ethic in Colossians Remixed is the “ethic of community.” Walsh and Keesmaat quote Rodney Clapp, who states that the early Christians “were about creating and sustaining a unique culture…and they were determined to be a culture, a quite public and political culture, even if it killed them and their children” (p. 179; emphasis mine). The last line sticks with the reader. Losing one’s own life for a cause is difficult to perceive but to also put one’s children in harm’s way is seemingly inconceivable. The writer of the paper is indifferent about this statement, but it makes the reader think about his or her family’s commitment to the cause of Christ. The Jesus painted by much of American Christianity, frankly, is not worth dying for and especially not worth putting one’s children in harm’s way.

(more…)

Colossians Remixed

Part 1.

Jesus is no longer worth following, or, at least, the Jesus painted by twenty-first American Christianity is not worth following. He is not exciting. He does not energize. Many in America have made Jesus into a prosperous, white-collared North American in order for anyone to pay interest. On the other hand, the Jesus, who Paul espouses, is exciting and challenging. Through Paul’s epistle to the Colossians, Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat in their book Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire bring to light a first-century Jesus, who is the Lord of the whole world and an alternative to Caesar and his empire. Based on this type of Jesus, the authors do well to remind the reader of a few things that he or she should take into account. They take this first-century, subversive message of Jesus and apply it directly to followers of Christ today. This Jesus is worth following.

(more…)

Caesar Augustus

Many of my recent studies have been focused around Rome and the New Testament (as with my post on Warren Carter’s book). After doing much research, I have put together a document comparing Caesar and Jesus. We must remember that many (if not all) of these titles/topics were dedicated to the Caesars before Jesus so the New Testament’s critique on empire should not be missed. I know I left off some other important titles such as “son of God,” but this should be a good starting point. Also, I must state that I am indebted to Richard Smith from Biblical Seminary as his lectures have assisted me in these studies.

View the document “Comparison between Caesar and Jesus” here (.pdf).

Is there anything I missed?

What are your thoughts after viewing this document?

The Roman Empire in the days of the New Testament is the focus of Warren Carter’s The Roman Empire and the New Testament: an Essential Guide. Carter attempts to show the reader that the Roman Empire was at the forefront of the first century, Christian writers’ minds, and the empire is engaged in every chapter of the New Testament text (2006, p. 1). The contemporary reader struggles to see clearly each reference to Rome, but first century readers would have recognized the subversive nature of the text in every manner explicit, as well as, implicit. Warren Carter’s argument is quite convincing. He does well to develop the mindset of the first century writers, and he accomplishes his goal that the writers had Rome on their minds.

(more…)

Mark 11:27 Again they came to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the temple… Mark 12:13 Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. ¹⁴And they came and said to him, ‘Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? ¹⁵Should we pay them, or should we not?’ But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, ‘Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.’ ¹⁶And they brought one. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ ¹⁷Jesus said to them, ‘Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were utterly amazed at him (NRSV).

A few things we notice from this passage.

1. Jesus has no money on him. I’m not sure what to really make of this, and I certainly do not suggest this means we shouldn’t carry any money anywhere. However, it is thought-provoking. Why doesn’t Jesus have money? Did he give it all to the Temple already? Did he purposely not bring money to the Temple? Does he have money? Contrary to some contemporary thought, I think ultimately this shows that Jesus didn’t have much money to his name.
2. Jesus sees through the question to the intention of the Pharisees and Herodians. Pretty good observation, don’t you think?
3. If Jesus answers one of the two ways his “accusers” hope he does, he will either be seen as a “rebel” or a “traitor of the faith.” If he says, “Don’t pay taxes,” Rome comes in (and we all know how they liked to handle things). If he says, “Pay taxes,” the Pharisees will call him a “traitor,” and many of Jesus’ followers will likely leave him because of their experience of Rome’s corruption and oppression. But Jesus doesn’t answer either of these ways, and that’s where he shows true wisdom.
4. Jesus doesn’t have a coin, so he asks his “accusers” for one. This may seem meaningless when we simply look at the text, but a deeper look into the cultural context will reveal much more. I would like to turn my attention to this…

In 1st century Palestine, it was unacceptable for a Jew to bring a Roman coin into the Temple. At this time (14-37 CE), a denarius had two blasphemous images on it–the first, a picture and inscription of “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus” (emphasis mine); the second on the back, a goddess with the inscription of “High Priest.” Thus, a God-fearing Jew (or culturally savvy one) would never have such a coin on his/her person while in the Temple.

This is where it gets humorous and exciting…

As soon as the guy grabs this denarius out of his pocket, he loses! The whole team loses! Jesus takes his accusers’ attempt to get him in trouble and turns their attempt on its head! Ha! They try to accuse him, but he gets them! Wow! I can imagine at least one guy in the group smack his own forehead and say, “Doy!” Hahaha!

That’s soooo Jesus, isn’t it?

And so, it’s almost as though Jesus is saying, “Give Caesar that disgusting piece of money! I don’t want it. He can have it. But Give to God what he desires–for you to love him with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. That’s what I’m all about.” Is that how we feel about money and the things of God? Are money and material items disgusting to us so much so that we have no problem giving them up? Are the things of God desirable to us? It’s something that we must think about.

It seems to me that Jesus often gives only two options to this debate: God or money. You choose. I know which one Jesus would.

(All of the above took place at my most recent class at Biblical Seminary, and such observations are credited to our professor Dr. Derek Cooper).

If you watch the above video, you may feel like I do that this is simply propaganda. Christians, particularly evangelicals, have been great at speaking for God and pronouncing his judgment on different things. Though I do not agree with this approach, they may or may not be correct. That’s besides the point. I want to speak of the logic behind this thought from two angles.

Tongue-in-cheek: Besides all the shameful theology going on in the video, there are a ton of spelling errors! C’mon! In the opening title of the video, the person spells Evangelical Lutheran Church in American incorrectly. “Church” is spelled c-h-u-r-c-h, not c-h-r-u-c-h. I’m pronouncing judgment on the producer of the video–God must have attacked his/her video with editing laziness. If you look at the tornado from the producer’s perspective and portray it using that video, it’s hard to see how it was coincidence. But no natural disaster happened during the Episcopal meeting so God is sending some mixed signals! Also, in a similar scenario, many don’t know that Hurricane Katrina demolished an evangelical seminary (Baptist something or other) in New Orleans more than it did the French Quarter. The French Quarter, a place of the satanic drink of alcohol, jazz clubs where one can find the evil instrument of drums, and some darn good cooking that will make you say, “[h-e-double-hockey-sticks] yeah!,” was the least hit of all New Orleans. So, what was going on at the seminary? That my real question.

In a seriousness: The Scriptures do tell us stories of prophets pronouncing judgment on God’s people. The funny thing is, that the majority of the time, it is because they haven’t taken care of the poor, alien, or outsider; not homosexuality. So, I have difficulty with this interpretation of God’s action. I’d like to process this through two subpoints:

(a) The theology that is displayed in the above video is not a theology of the Christian God. In fact, the idea is slightly deistic. The idea that God intervenes with judgment only via natural disasters is a viewpoint that God rarely is involved in our lives but only is when he wants to “make a statement” (per se). Thus, from my understanding, the theology is not Christian theology. If the producer(s) was follow Christian theology, s/he will make a video next time about his/her pastor’s sin next time he is sick. That theology of judgment is more biblical than an occasional only-when-God-has-to-make-a-statement view of judgment. The Christian God interacts in all areas of life, is involved in all areas of life. He does not sit in the clouds and occasionally throws lighting bolts at us. The video is more unorthodox than orthodox.

We must also remember that it is not a 1:1 ratio. Sometimes, Jesus says that one’s infirmity is based on his/her sin (cf. Mark 2:1-11), and, other times, this is not the case (cf. John 9). Thus, just because a natural disaster happens (which by the way, natural disasters are rarely used for judgment. I can only think of the flood where this is the case) does not mean it was God’s judgment. If so, the baptist seminary was evil, too. However, we are not God, and therefore, cannot be sure of this. This leads me to my next point.

(b)  I’m a firm believer that theology must always start with humility and prayer (maybe prayer first). Prayer, literally if on our knees or figuratively in our hearts, puts us in a posture of humility before God. We must be very, very, very careful of speaking about God. We need to speak about God as his people, but we must be very careful in doing so. I’m not sure if this was God’s judgment (and I highly doubt it), and so I will leave it at that. This video stands above the world and points down condescendingly at it. Jesus, on the other hand, condescends to humanity and spends much of this time on the margins of society. Read the Gospels, and this becomes very clear. It’s easy for me to proof-text and interpret things for my agenda, but it is much more difficult to follow the agenda of the kingdom with Jesus to the margins.

Let’s be on our knees.

Princeton Theological Seminary has begun a study on the works of N.T. Wright called the “N.T. Wright Project” and will be blogging about it here.

A recent post called “Violence, Monsters, and the Ascension: Barth and Wright on the Problem of War” caught my eye since I’d been reading Barth and love N.T. Wright. The post intends to juggle both Barth’s view on ethics and Wright’s view on discipleship in light of the debate between war and non-violence. Being a proponent of non-violent Christianity made the post irresistable. When you have a moment, read the post. I’m interested in hearing your comments here on this site.

Excerpt:

I’m with Barth in thinking that Christian ethics isn’t frozen and fixed but dynamic, since it constitutes obedience to the living Word that continues to be spoken today in Jesus Christ. But I don’t know if I can go along with Barth in leaving the possibility open that Jesus will command his followers to use violence and wage war. Here’s where we can bring Wright’s thoughts into play…      more…

Q: How do you feel about Barth’s view on ethics?

Q: Do you agree or disagree with the author’s convergence of Barth’s and Wright’s thought?

Rick Warren is a mega-church pastor from Southern California. He was asked by Obama to give the invocation at his inauguration (this stirred some controversy). Overall, I thought Warren did a nice job in his prayer. It was well thought-out, articulate, and loving. I’m sure some were upset that he actually mentioned “Jesus,” but I think most Americans can get past that. Below is the text and video of his prayer.

Let us pray.

Almighty God, our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory.

History is your story. The Scripture tells us, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One.” And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now, today, we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hingepoint of history with the inauguration of our first African American president of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.

Give to our new President, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race, or religion, or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all. When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all. May all people of goodwill today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you. We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray:

“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”

[copied and pasted from Christianity Today here]