Why Rob Bell Matters to Me Even If People Think He Doesn’t. Response to @tg24, @gklimovitz, and maybe @fitchest

My friend, Tim, was the first to respond to my post on Rob Bell’s comments on gay marriage in his post “Why Rob Bell Matters to Me.” In his post, Tim put Tony Jones and himself (?) on one side of the debate and David Fitch and I on the other. In Tim’s words, he and Tony believe Rob Bell matters but David and I don’t. Then my friend Greg jumped in with an indirect challenge to evangelicals (and me?) in his post “Rob Bell Has Come Out…with a new book. O yea, and as affirming of gay marriage, too.”

I’d like to respond to both thoroughly but as pastors they only work on Sundays :) , and I’m busy Sundays so I will offer a brief response here. I also wanted to say something to the effect of “Shut up, you stupid heads,” but that argument stopped working once I went into seminary.

First, Tim. Tim among other things suggested I didn’t believe Rob Bell matters and challenged my (and David’s) understanding of community accountability when he said:

I think what else bugs me is this “Who holds him accountable?” question that’s been circulating feels a lot like “Who can we contact to get him in trouble because he has stepped out of line?” or “To whom do go to tell on him?” As part of the generation who is suspicious of “organized religion” I like there are people who are working outside the system. As one who is employed by the system, I hope to bring redemption/reformation to it.

I never claimed Rob Bell doesn’t matter. I actually think he does. If Rob Bell came out and said he loved the Philadelphia Phillies, I’d buy the same hipster glasses and potentially ruin my 20-20 eyesight in his honor. However, when any Christian makes divisive statements, they should be held accountable. Scripture claims that Christians belong to one another. So, yes, Rob Bell belongs to me, and I to him. If we treat his statements like they happen in a vacuum, we are in dangerous waters.

Also, anyone’s claim that Bell’s readers hold him accountable is like saying that social media is real community. Community guides us and oftentimes slows us down. I’d hate to have said what I wanted to (as many might say, speak authentically) ten years ago to have been heard out loud. I’d might not have the job I have now if I did that. Community can actually slow us down and sometimes that’s a good thing.

Let’s also not forget that the community help Rob Bell get where he is, and now we are upset that he’s being critiqued by those same people? Community’s a give-and-take. It’s a back-and-forth. That’s what makes it ugly sometimes, but other times it makes it beautiful.

I don’t want to have someone to “go tell on” Rob Bell. As much as it might sound like that to Tim, that’s not my intent. Tim could be accused of stating, “You can say whatever you want, and we don’t care.” These reactions to criticism of Bell can stem from a poor understanding of sola scriptura, believing that the sense of Scripture can be understood apart from the Church. Where’s the concern for faithful reading? Where’s the concern for the body?

Now, Greg seems to think Rob Bell and Barth sound similar. I at times believe Greg falls subject to thinking that Barth was the first to say something and so anything that sounds like something Barth said came from Barth’s head. Greg also think evangelicals have pushed Barth, Origen, Richard Rohr, Hans urs Von Balthasar to the margins. This is untrue. I’m reading Balthasar right now! Has Greg ever been to an evangelical-missional conference? :) If so, he wouldn’t have made it through a day without Barth or Rohr quoted.

However, that’s a point for another day. I’d like to challenge Greg’s point about:

I also think what many are talking about is envy and fear. Critics are envious of his ability to speak with authenticity and clarity what many of us, maybe most of us, are actually thinking. They envy his ability to communicate the gospel in a way that actually draws cynics and skeptics into the community of faith others have been trying to preserve and defend for so long. Many envy his creativity and reputation with artists, poets, film makers, the Dalai Lama, and Desmund Tutu, who are working for the transformation of creation. Many may envy that God is actually at work in the other, the different, the liberal, and those who do not fit within labeled theological boxes.

Sounds to me like Greg needs a hug from an evangelical. (I would be glad to impart this to him if he would ever get back to me with a date for lunch!) Sure, some of Bell’s critics (read for Greg “evangelicals”) are fearful and envious. However, some of his critics don’t know they are critics because they don’t know Bell exists (for those people Bell doesn’t matter, Tim!). And some of his critics just don’t agree. And some of his critics like me love him and just disagree with his method here. We could reverse Greg’s argument back to Greg that critics of evangelicals are envious of the growth of conservatism globally.

Ultimately, my concern is pastoral. Rob Bell can say whatever he wants, but pastors and church leaders (people who are connected to a larger body) have to deal with his statements on Sunday. Rob Bell is like the guest speaker at a retreat. He can say whatever he wants and walk away (don’t get me wrong: I love that about guest speaking!). When the speaker leaves, the body is there to discern, sift, and engage the information, but the speaker goes home and sleeps through the night. As pastors (well, Greg’s a director, technically…but not for long!), I’d think Tim and Greg would resonate with that.

In summary, Rob Bell matters to me: (1) because he is a brother in Christ and we belong to each other, (2) because community matters, and (3) because of the pastoral dilemma his statement creates.

Why do we stop at verse 10?

Why do we typically stop reciting at Ephesians 2:10? Verses 11-end are awesome!

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called ?the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, ?alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to ?the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were ?far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, ?who has made us both one and has broken down t?in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one ?new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might ?reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and ?preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For ?through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,4 but you are ?fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 ?built on the foundation of the ?apostles and prophets, ?Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him ?you also are being built together ?into a dwelling place for God by? the Spirit.

How Should I Teach the Bible to My Children?

If you’re like me, “How should I teach the Bible to my children?” is a question you’ve more than just mulled over. I’ve tried and have struggled with how to teach my children the Bible. I tried the cover-to-cover approach, but lost their interest somewhere in Exodus. I also tried reading them Psalms and the Gospels. However, it never really “clicked.” I am very cynical of Bible curriculum, since they are usually overly simplistic and are nothing like how people study Scripture. With this being said, I was more than excited to be offered a chance to review Olive Branch Books’ Telling God’s Story curriculum when I heard it was shaped by biblical scholar Dr. Peter Enns (who I am fond of). The curriculum entails three books:

  1. Parents Guide

    Parents Guide: this is the “owner’s manual” for the curriculum. Peter Enns helps provide a framework for how to read the Bible and teach it to children. Enns’ notices that there is a significant gap between how we teach children to read the Bible and how the Bible is studied when they approach college. (Read excerpt here).

  2. Instructor Text & Teaching Guide: Telling God’s Story Year 1: Meeting Jesus is written by Peter Enns for grades 1-4 and starts with the Gospels. It is Enns’ belief that the point of Scripture is Jesus and thus we should start there with our children. There are 52 lessons for 52 weeks of the year. The sections are split up in 8 different parts surrounding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
  3. Student Guide & Activity Pages: The Instructor Text & Teaching Guide is complemented by this activity book which provides corresponding activities (music, craft, art history, coloring, cooking activities) to each lesson.

My goal in reviewing this is to try 5 lessons on my 3 year old daughter and blog about it here. I will also provide a review of each pieces of the curriculum. My thought is, if a 3 year old can follow the lessons, a first grader will definitely be able to do so. I have recently taken over the children’s ministry at our church, and, if I find the curriculum valuable, I will be implementing it there as well and will encourage you to do so, too. So, keep checking back, or follow me on Twitter for updates.

I want to thank Justin Moore of Olive Branch Books for approaching me and giving me the opportunity to review this curriculum. I am looking forward to it!

Pre-Release Review of Francis Chan’s “Erasing Hell”

Erasing Hell by Francis Chan

"Erasing Hell" by Francis Chan

I was honored to receive a pre-published copy of Francis Chan’s (and Preston Sprinke’s) soon-to-be-released book called Erasing Hell: what God said about eternity, and the things we made up from its publisher David Cook. To be quite honest, I’ve never read anything by Francis Chan, but I know he’s extremely popular in evangelical circles for his book Crazy Love. Thus, I was excited when I was asked to review Erasing Hell (release date: July 5).

If you’ve been paying attention, Rob Bell’s most recent book Love Wins has sparked a great amount of controversy but, more importantly, a great amount of conversation around, particularly, the topic of hell (quite frankly, evangelicals should have had these discussions ten years ago but, alas, here we are). Francis Chan, assisted by Preston Sprinkle, has now entered the conversation with his book Erasing Hell. It is my desire to give you enough of the book to whet your appetite to read it but, also, provide you with my critique.

What I liked: Francis Chan has a great amount of exegesis of the biblical text along with extra-biblical material in order to describe what the Jewish people during Jesus’ time believed about hell. One of my greatest frustrations with Love Wins was the lack of references and extended exegesis. This is not a fault of Erasing Hell.

Chan explains that Jesus grew up in a Jewish culture that believed the following about hell:

1. Hell is a place of punishment after judgment.
2. Hell is described in imagery of fire and darkness, where people lament.
3. Hell is a place of annihilation or never-ending punishment (p. 50).

Jesus and his followers, basically, fall in line with these viewpoints. Francis Chan (and don’t forget Preston Sprinkle) does well to build this argument.

Francis Chan

Francis Chan

In the appendix of FAQ’s, Chan addresses the question, “Are the images of fire, darkness, and worms to be understood literally” (p. 153)? Francis Chan, after explaining how Scripture mixes imagery of darkness and fire (i.e., light) for hell, says, “Given the widespread use of fire as a metaphor in Scripture, I find it best to take these images nonliterally” (emphasis mine), and, concerning the details of torment (i.e., worms, gnashing of teeth, etc.), he says, “So while the passages examined in this book are clear about hell as a real place where the wicked will be tormented, the Bible does not seem to tell us exactly what that torment will entail” (p. 155; emphasis mine).

I credit Francis Chan (and, oh yeah, Preston Sprinkle) for both Erasing Hell’s exegesis as well as rejecting the tendency to take metaphors literally.

What I disliked: Outside of his treatment of some of Rob Bell’s arguments (e.g., Bell’s “hell on earth,” p. 48) and framing Origen’s heresy as a matter of universalism (p. 24), I have one major dislike in Erasing Hell.

One of my friends once said to me, “There’s a difference between theology and apologetics. Theology, you seek to learn new things about God. Apologetics, you seek to confirm what you already believe.” What I most disliked about Erasing Hell is that (I believe) Chan was doing apologetics—confirming what he already believed. Although Chan claims to be allowing Scripture to change his viewpoints (emphasized in the book and pre-release video), I have trouble believing this. For instance, Chan interprets the division of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-45, “Believers are awarded everlasting life, while unbelievers are awarded everlasting punishment” (p. 75), and, then later describes the sheep as “believers in Jesus” and the goats as “unbelievers” (p. 82). But does Matthew 25 actually say the sheep are believers in Jesus and the goats as unbelievers? Not really. In fact, the judgment in Matthew 25 (along with most, if not all, New Testament judgment passages), is based on works, not belief. In my opinion, Chan is reading his already-formulated, evangelical position back onto Matthew 25.

Overall: Erasing Hell is an excellent book for those seeking better articulate a position on hell. Chan’s humble approach is necessary in the conversation, and I applaud his position of hell as being after judgment and hell-imagery as metaphors (I know the latter will not make literalists happy but, really, what does?). Unfortunately, Chan’s exegesis and the writing style in Erasing Hell often read like a research paper, and this possibly could be lost on most laity, which is problematic for the evangelical conversation around hell. For instance, my 15-year-old brother is reading Rob Bell’s book Love Wins. I will offer Erasing Hell to him, but, unfortunately, unlike Love Wins, most of it will be “over his head.” I credit Chan for his exegesis and his use of ancient texts, but I doubt most people will resonate with this approach. It’s not that I want Bell’s Love Wins to win the day (in my opinion, Bell’s views are a little too loose). I’d rather the conversation move forward with both Bell’s and Chan’s (and Sprinkle’s) viewpoints.

I would recommend Erasing Hell as a sparring partner to Love Wins. Although it might be “over the head” of many, I hope Erasing Hell‘s approach will resonate with enough people for the betterment of evangelicalism in the future.

The NTW Project: Are Tattoos Biblical?

Tattoo

Tattoo

Have you ever had a debate with someone over what the Bible says? Well, I have. It isn’t always pleasant, but, often, it can be beneficial for you (and sometimes, for both parties). One instance in my own life was with my grandfather (who has now passed away) over the dreaded issue of (duh, duh, dum)…tattoos. I truly found nothing wrong with Christians having tattoos, and I was pretty confident about it. My grandfather on the other hand did not agree. In fact, he found out about a previous discussion I had with my dad about tattoos, and, at an after-church lunch one day, he handed me a 3×5 card with a verse from Leviticus, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the LORD” (19:28 NLT). I thanked him and responded that this verse is from Leviticus, and, unless we were expected to keep the ceremonial laws, then I would have to disregard it. We went back and forth for some time, but, eventually, we agreed to disagree.

Now, I don’t have tattoos. It’s not that I don’t want one or think they are “evil.” It’s just that I’d rather feed my family. My brother does have tattoos; perhaps, one day I will join him (and, Jon, if you are reading this, you’re welcome for fighting those battles with Mom and Grandpop :) ). However, I thought about this conversation with my grandfather, particularly, after his death. It just didn’t do it for me to say, “Well…that’s the Old Testament. Disregard it.” Somehow, I think I remember the Church deciding that such things were heretical. So, how would I approach something like this in the future?

The Last Word (2005)

The Last Word (2005)

Voila! Enter N.T. Wright’s The Last Word and his five-act hermeneutic. The five-acts are as follows: creation, fall, Israel, Jesus, and the church. We are currently living in the fifth act “the church” (In case you were wondering, this is not dispensationalism). There are several things to highlight about this:

  • NTW explains,

This act began with Easter and Pentecost; its opening scenes are the apostolic period itself; its charter text is the New Testament; its goal, its intended final scene, is sketched clearly in such passages as Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21-22. The key point of the whole model, which forms the heart of the multi-layered view of how “the authority of scripture” actually works, runs as follows: Those who live in this fifth act have an ambiguous relationship with the four previous acts, not because they are being disloyal to them but precisely because they are being loyal to them as part of the story (p. 122).

  • He continues, “We must act in the appropriate manner for this moment in the story; this will be in direct continuity with the previous acts (we are not free to jump suddenly to another narrative, a different play altogether)” (p. 123; emphasis original).
  • This leads us to a state of “improvisation” within Act 5. Creativity is allowed, but we are acting within the play. For instance, if one was improvising within a Shakespearean play, he or she would not add spaceships to the play. They simply don’t work within that framework.
  • What about tradition? Wright correctly explains that tradition is a “grid” on how to interpret Scripture (p. 118). There are scenes that have gone before us in Act 5. If we are to jump in now, we must take into account what has already happened in our Act. To disregard tradition is like me saying, “I don’t care who my grandfather was or where my parents lived most of my life. They don’t make me who I am. I am me.” And then I go about acting as if these things never existed or don’t influence my behavior. Such is certainly not true and is absurd (as at most a psychologist could tell you or at least my Philly accent gives it away that my history makes me who I am today).

So, back to the issue at hand — what do you say to the Christian who thinks tattoos are evil? Perhaps you consider the Act in which Leviticus was written (i.e., Israel), then look at Act 4 with Jesus, and then Act 5 with the apostles and so forth; and then you conclude that tattoos are a matter of Christian freedom–just like wearing a shirt made of two cloths. I know it takes some time to explain how this works to someone, but it might be time that we give people a better framework on how to interpret Scripture. For instance, I don’t know how one can believe in the “prosperity gospel” if he or she reads the Prophets or the Gospels (or church history for that matter). That’s like spaceships in a Shakespearean play!

As I stated yesterday, I don’t agree with Wright on everything in this book, but, overall, I believe this is how the authority of Scripture works, like a story, like a five-act play. It is a guiding principle. It leads us to better understand who God is and what his mission for us is, as well. In the end, Wright’s The Last Word encourages us to read Scripture, wrestle with it, and allow it to guide us each and every day. Score 8 out of 10.

+++++++
Wright, N.T. (2005). The last word: beyond the Bible wars to a new understanding of the authority of Scripture. Harper: San Francisco.

Buy: Amazon.com

The N.T. Wright Project: The Authority of Scripture

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)

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?

The NTW Project: The Last Word

The Last Word (1st ed. 2005; 2nd ed. 2009)

The Last Word (1st ed. 2005; 2nd ed. 2009)

I have a great place in my heart for N.T. Wright’s The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (my edition is different from the picture. I have the earlier one). I was finishing up college, and I was looking for a fresh “word” about Scripture. I was tired of hearing how the Bible was the “infallible, inerrant word of God.” Not that I didn’t (or don’t) believe those things, but I was used to hearing those words as an attack on someone else. “We believe Scripture!” is what I would hear with nuance or substance. I also had learned my theology from a strong dispensational standpoint, and it was beginning to unravel for me. It just didn’t make sense. Things were just too neat and organized.

I picked up The Last Word at a local bookstore because the topic intrigued me, and I was looking at Biblical Theological Seminary to attend for graduate work and John Franke (a professor there) endorsed the book. I never heard of this N.T. Wright guy, except once or twice before. I knew he wrote a few things, and some people liked him. So, I picked it up. What I found is what I fell in love with!

Looking back, it isn’t Wright’s best book, but it was my first exposure, and, like your first kiss, it’s memorable. I remember reading the book as I handed out fliers for the company I worked for at the time. I would walk around the neighborhood to put fliers on mailboxes (putting them in is illegal), and I brought this book with me. I re-read it (very quickly) for these blog posts, and I realized how much of my theology was truly influenced by this book. I hope you enjoy my posts on it.

The N.T. Wright Project

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright

4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

If you don’t know already, I am a huge N.T. Wright fan. No other author has had a more lasting impact on my life than he. God has used his writings to help me be a better lover for theology, a better Christian, and (I would even suggest) a better human. Over the next two weeks, I will be reading multiple books by N.T. Wright and reflecting on them here on my blog. My goal: read 4 of his books, write two reflections/posts on each, give a score (e.g., 7 out of 10) for each one, and complete it all before my wife gives birth to our son (wish me luck!). I hope you will find my reflections stimulating and encouraging. If you are looking for someone to call NTW a “heretic,” you won’t find that here, but I hope I can offer you a glimpse into his theology and maybe you’ll pick up one of the books on your own, too. I would also like to challenge any other NTW fans to take on this “N.T. Wright Project” over the summer, read a book or two, and offer reflections on their perspective blogs. Anyone interested?

I have chosen the following as part of this undertaking, and I have provided pieces of the Amazon.com reviews to help you get a brief synopsis of what each book is about:

Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

“Why does evil persist in a world created by a good God? And why does the church seem so feeble in counteracting evil? Wright, a New Testament scholar who is Anglican bishop of Durham, U.K., and author of several well-received volumes, including Jesus and the Victory of God, addresses these questions in a readable and compelling plea to renew the church’s compassionate mission in these challenging times.”

“Wright offers sensible insights on the transforming power of God, very necessary in these times of skepticism and confusion.” (Publishers Weekly )

“The best book of its kind available.” (The Christian Century )

“[P]robing, provocative, insightful…This is a book of uncommon wisdom for all who read and love the Bible.” (Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and Executive Editor of Christianity Today)

N. T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said leads readers through the current scholarly discussion of Paul and gives a concise account of the actual contribution Paul made to the birth of Christianity. Wright offers a critique of the argument that claims that it was Paul who founded Christianity and shows clearly that Paul this allegation is simply not true. But rather that Paul was the faithful witness and herald of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah and the risen Lord of the Christian faith. And that neither he, nor any of those who immediately followed him in the leadership counsels of the Christian church, every claimed or thought otherwise. — Midwest Book Review

“For some time now, I have watched in puzzlement as some critics, imagining themselves as defenders of Paul’s gospel, have derided Tom Wright as a dangerous betrayer of the Christian faith. In fact, Paul’s gospel of God’s reconciling, world-transforming grace has no more ardent and eloquent exponent in our time than Tom Wright. If his detractors read this book carefully, they will find themselves engaged in close exegesis of Paul’s letters, and they will be challenged to join Wright in grappling with the deepest logic of Paul’s message. Beyond slogans and caricatures of ‘Lutheran readings’ and ‘the New Perspective,’ the task we all face is to interpret these difficult, theologically generative letters afresh for our time. Wright’s sweeping, incisive sketch of Paul’s thought, set forward in this book, will help us all in that task.” —-Richard B. Hays, Duke University

The Best Response to Glenn Beck Ever!

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck

In case you haven’t heard, FoxNews personality, Glenn Beck, has asked Christians to leave their churches if their pastor(s) speaks of “social justice.” So, I figured I would compile verses supporting one set of social justice issues, that is, the caring for the poor, and, then, compile all the verses about Glenn Beck at the end. Here they are:

Verses about the poor (i.e., “social justice” or what Beck calls “code for communism”):

Continue reading

Sola Scriptura: thoughts on Eastern Orthodox view

Recently, I’ve become more and more attracted to the Eastern Orthodox Church view of Scripture, that is, Scripture is a part of Tradition rather than a separate entity from it. Where this differs from the Roman Catholic view is that the RCC sees Scripture and Tradition to be two pillars of the faith.

The questions this creates:

  1. If we see Scripture as part of Tradition, what do we do with individual interpretation? Does it cease to exist?
  2. Also, what do we do with language, historical, and scientific developments? Are they to be ignored if Tradition has yet to deal with them?
  3. How does this handle the idea of experience (as in the Wesleyan belief)?

These are some questions I have for the EOC view. If you are Orthodox, could you assist me with these questions?

The problems this solves:

  1. It seems that the New Testament authors were, at many times, working within a particular interpretive tradition. They would often quote Scripture with no regard for historical context and reinterpret it to prove a specific Christological point. For instance, interact with Matthew’s use of Hosea 11. Matthew clearly interprets this to be a futuristic prediction of Jesus the Messiah. However, Hosea clearly is referring to a past event, that is, exodus, without any futuristic content. Matthew changes the text because his interpretive tradition, at that time, did so. Thus, it seems that the EOC continues such a tradition, in that it reads Scripture within a certain tradition rather than separate from it.
  2. The EOC view, also, answers the question I raised before, “How did Christians handle issues of the faith for 300 years or so without a canonized Scripture?” Well, apostolic tradition, of course.
  3. It also keeps from wild (even unbiblical, unchristian) interpretations since EOC members learn to submit to the authority of the community, the Church.
  4. Lastly (and by no means does this exhaust this section), everyone relies on Tradition, whether they’d like to admit it or not. For instance, rapture theorists rely on a tradition, even though it’s only a 200 year-old, American tradition. So, when the question comes, “What does First Thessalonians 4 mean?” These Christians would say, “Well, it’s talking about the rapture.” But the majority of global Christians would say something else, perhaps like, “Well, Paul is using Caesar language there, making Jesus the ‘better Caesar.’” Denial one’s own reliance on tradition is naïve. We all do it, at least, the EOC admits it.

I would like to hear what people have to say about this, especially, those of you from the RCC or EOC, though I’d love to hear from you, Protestants, too. If you could offer some insight, please comment below.

Related Posts with Thumbnails