_awakening

Scripture as Story.

Julia M. O'Brien has a thought provoking essay up on Bible and Interpretation entitled Growing an Audience. Here's a sample:

If biblical scholars want to continue to have relevance (and stay employed) we have to start talking more about why people should care about the Bible, not relying on the fact that they historically have. We need to quit depending on religious institutions (or maybe religious radio) to cultivate a "tradition" that we can expertly correct. We need to speak more about why the Bible matters to us, what we think it has to offer beyond "background."

Well put. I think she not only speaks well to the issue of the popularization of the Bible in publishing, but also to the need to re-introduce the scriptures as something that can speak to us today in our current human condition.

Her article reminded me of a conversation we had last week in class where we talked about the scriptures as a record of God's happening to humanity. In other words, the scriptures are a collection of writings focused on God's real and tangible interaction with humanity. The scriptures are not just ancient stories, but speak to the larger human condition and God's interaction in the very midst of those human conditions. It is a collection of writings that speak about the past, but also about the now.

Weekend Readings.

A collection of updates, responses, postings, and the truly bizarre for your weekend reading pleasure. Enjoy.

Robert Cargill responds to his critics regarding why Christians should adopt the BCE/BC dating system.

Scot McKnight jumps into the discussion on Rob Bell and the corruption of the term "evangelical". I think he is measured and dead on right.

Christianity Today interviews Don Miller regarding his latest book and how to embrace life as a better narrative. I had the opportunity to hear Miller speak last weekend at Mariners Church. His thoughts on life as narrative are very insightful.

And finally, just when you thought "Christianity" couldn't get any stranger, or more disturbing, along comes this beauty from Sojourners. [Be sure you click through and watch the "Taking the Hill" video.]

Have a great rest of your weekend...

"Evangelical?"

Today, Out of Ur posted a portion of the Boston Globe interview with Rob Bell about his current tour Drops Like Stars. The interview invariably turned to the term "evangelical" and it's use in our culture:

Q. What does it mean to you to be an evangelical?

A. I take issue with the word to a certain degree, so I make a distinction between a capital E and a small e. I was in the Caribbean in 2004, watching the election returns with a group of friends, and when Fox News, in a state of delirious joy, announced that evangelicals had helped sway the election, I realized this word has really been hijacked. I find the word troubling, because it has come in America to mean politically to the right, almost, at times, anti-intellectual. For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context.

Q. OK, how would you describe what it is that you believe?

A. I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

Now while one might agree or disagree with Rob's response to the final question, there's something larger going on here that we should not miss.

We live in an age where the term "evangelical" has indeed been corrupted to mean a myriad of things that perhaps were never a part of the original intent. I think a worthy question that needs to be asked is this, What does the term "evangelical" import today in this culture. Is what is often portrayed by the term "evangelical" something Jesus would attach himself to? [Could we "be taking the Lord's name in vain" by attaching the name "evangelical" to what we do?]

So what should the term "evangelical" mean today? Is it a term that still has importance?

Amazing Grace?

Mark Galli recently tackled the issue of recent Christians in the news in his article, The Scandal of the Public Evangelical. The article was thought-provoking, but once again the comment section proves to be much more entertaining. [Apparently grace is still a controversial topic...]

I would add one more thing to Galli's thoughts. I don't think society at large is looking for followers of Jesus to be perfect. I think they are looking for them to be authentic, approachable, honest, and responsible. All too often, they get just the opposite.

Rohr on Heaven and Hell.

WARNING: Controversial material ahead.

Okay, now that we have that out of the way, let's move on. I have to say that I've really been enjoying Rohr's book, Things Hidden: Scripture As Spirituality. It has challenged and pushed me to think deeply on a variety of issues. This morning I sat with my cup of coffee and read the chapter "The Resented Banquet," which I think is one of the best in the best in the book.

The chapter is a discussion on the issue of grace, where he likens the larger narrative of the scriptures as an invitation to banquet with our Creator. [More on this in another post.] In the middle of the chapter, while talking about our mindset of works and performance-based Christianity, he makes a few comments on the nature of heaven and hell that I found fascinating, if not a little provocative...

Instead of images of states of life, they [heaven and hell] became both threats and carrots on a stick. Most religions seem to have similar metaphors symbolizing the ultimate imperatives; it is an important way of saying that our decisions do have  consequences and meaning in eternity...

Unfortunately, we made them into physical places instead of descriptions of states of mind and heart and calls to decision in this world. That is precisely what John Paul II's point. We pushed the whole thing off into the future, and took it out of the now. Inasmuch as we did so, we lost the in-depth transformative power of the Christian religion. Threat and fear is not transformation. It became a souls-saving society for the next world, instead of a healing of the body, soul and society now - and therefore - forever!

All of Jesus' healings, touchings and "salvations" (Luke 7:50; 17:19; 19:9) were clearly now. He never once said, "Be good now, and I will give you a reward later." Show me one prerequisite that Jesus ever has for a single one of his healings. The healing now seems to be an end in itself and has nothing to do with earning it.

For Jesus all rewards are inherent to the action itself, and all punishments are inherent to the action itself, but we largely pushed all rewards and punishments into the future... It is clearly "Now and forever" talk in Jesus, but we made it into "Not now, but perhaps forever if you play the game right."

What you choose now, you will have then. God is giving everyone exactly what they want. Mature religion creates an affinity, a connaturality, a kinship between this world and the next. One is not a testing ground for the next, but a "practicing" and choosing for the next. Christianity is quite simply "practicing for heaven." If you want it later, do it now, and God seems to be saying, "I will give you whatever you want."

You do not transform people by threatening them with hellfire, because then the whole thing is grounded in fear and not love, and heaven is not fear. Remember, how you get there determines where you finally arrive. You cannot prepare to love by practicing fear. Means determines the end: Fear creates hell; love creates heaven. No one will be in heaven who does not want to be there. No one will be in hell who does not want to be there. [pp. 173-4]

Now, before you post a comment in haste, stop and think about the quote. Perhaps you want to give it 24 hours before you comment. Read the quote a few times. Ask yourself some questions. Let the quote ferment a bit...

Embracing the Advent.

Mars Hill Bible Church has posted a series of scriptural readings for the Advent season. If you are looking for a way to welcome the coming Jesus this season, these readings might be just the thing. I know that I'll be reading them, as well as meditating and perhaps doing a bit of written reflection throughout the season. Here's from the Mars Hill website:

These daily readings were chosen to help capture four main Advent themes: hope, peace, joy, and love. Be encouraged as you read, knowing many others in our community are reading and reflecting on these themes with you.

WEEK 1 - HOPE
Nov 30 - Isaiah 40v1-5
Dec 1 - Psalm 42
Dec 2 - Romans 8v18-27
Dec 3 - Isaiah 11v1-10
Dec 4 - Hebrews 6v13-20
Dec 5 - Psalm 33
Dec 6 - Isaiah 35

WEEK 2 - PEACE
Dec 7 - Isaiah 40v9-11
Dec 8 - Philippians 4v4-7
Dec 9 - Jeremiah 33v7-16
Dec 10 - Isaiah 42v1-9
Dec 11 - Zechariah 9v9-17
Dec 12 - 2 Corinthians 1v2-5
Dec 13 - Isaiah 52v7-10

WEEK 3 - JOY
Dec 14 - Habakkuk 3
Dec 15 - John 16v5-28
Dec 16 - Isaiah 55v9-13
Dec 17 - Psalm 66
Dec 18 - 1 Peter 1v3-9
Dec 19 - Psalm 96
Dec 20 - Isaiah 12

WEEK 4 - LOVE
Dec 21 - Zephaniah 3v14-20
Dec 22 - Psalm 89v1-4
Dec 23 - Ephesians 2v1-10
Dec 24 - Isaiah 9v6-7

May your Advent season be filled with hope, peace, joy, and love as you embrace the coming of Jesus and the Kingdom among us.

More Odds and Ends.

While surveying what has been posted in the past few weeks, here are a few things that caught my eye. Thought I'd pass them along...

Herschel Shanks has written an open letter of sorts to his friend, and recently deceased, David Noel Freedman. UC San Diego has also issued a very nice press release on Freedman's passing. It is well worth reading about the life and work of this eminent scholar. We have definitely lost one of the finest.

Chris Tilling recounts his journey from creationist to evolutionist. Now before jumping to some conclusion, read this piece carefully and thoughtfully. Chris follows up the post interacting with some of the comments and pondering out loud whether Jesus was wrong.

JR Woodward recently completed a series of posts on whether conversion is a four-lettered word. The series is absolutely worth the time to read, especially to follow the conversation in the comments. I think JR is on to something.

And lastly... Christianity Today has posted an intriguing article on How to Save the Christian Bookstore. With my disdain for many things attached to the so called "Christian bookstore" [no news here], my answer to the question might perhaps be a little different...

Does Context Matter?

So the conversation continues...

A few days back, Andrew Jones could hold back no longer and offered some excellent thoughts on the issue of the importance of contextualization in response to comments made by John MacArthur and Phil Johnson. Well, apparently Phil has responded to Andrew, and likewise Andrew has responded back.

I think this is an important discussion. What is the role of contextualizing the message of the gospel and the scriptures? Is it even possible to have a non-contextualized gospel?

Odds and Ends.

Over the past week or so there's been some really good stuff floating around. Here's a quick sampling that caught my eye and made me stop and think. Enjoy.

In response to John MacArthur and Phil Johnson's latest statements on the evils of contextualization, Andrew Jones lets loose with some excellent thoughts of his own on the issue of context and whether it really matters or not.

Greg Boyd has recently been exploring the issue of violence in the Hebrew Bible. His thoughts have been outstanding thus far. Check them out here, here, and here.

Stephen Shields offers one of the better primers on the Emerging Church out there.

My friend, Mike King, offers some insights on N.T. Wright's latest, Surprised by Hope. If the book is half as good as Mike describes it, it's a must read. I might just have to bump it up closer to the top of the list now.

Speaking of Wright, along with the Easter season came some great articles and interviews which are well worth the read:
Heaven is Not Our Home [Christianity Today]
The Resurrection Revolution [The Washington Post]
N.T. Wright on Resurrection [PreachingToday Blog]

And finally, Scot McKnight posted about the suspension of Peter Enns from Westminster Theological Seminary. The discussion and comments there are really, really insightful.

Geza Vermes: Questions Arising.

The Guardian recently interviewed Geza Vermes about his life work and his latest book, The Resurrection: History and Myth.

For Geza Vermes, retirement seems to have concentrated the mind. Since giving up the day job as professor of Jewish studies at Oxford University in 1991, he has been writing books at a faster rate than he ever did when he was meant to be working. And now, aged 83, he shows no sign of letting up. For the past eight weeks he has been taking seminars for a former Oxford colleague on study leave and in May he's off to Switzerland to speak at a rather grand interdisciplinary conference on The Truth. In between, his most recent book, The Resurrection, is published this week.

The Resurrection is the final instalment of Vermes's Jesus trilogy, which began with The Passion and The Nativity. Vermes again adopts his trademark forensic textual analysis to separate fact from myth: "I wanted to explain exactly what the New Testament does tell us about the resurrection. People usually rely on others to interpret the gospels for them and St Paul's assertion of the physical resurrection has become a cornerstone of Christianity for many people. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then faith is rubbish.

"Yet if you look at what Jesus actually said, then you get a different picture. If he did talk about the resurrection, he forgot to write it down; so it's more likely he didn't. And if he did, then why did his resurrection come as such a surprise to the apostles? No one said, 'Of course, Jesus said it would be like this' when his tomb was found to be empty; even Mary Magdalene assumed that someone must have moved the body. Nobody's reactions correspond to the expectation of a resurrection."

Vermes goes on to argue that subsequent sightings of Jesus are best understood as visions in which the apostles felt his charisma working as it had done when he was alive. "Jesus had promised to be with them and he was," he argues. "It's a resurrection of the spirit in the hearts of believers. The idea of an afterlife predates the Christian era and the preaching of eternal life is well attested; a physical resurrection is not essential to a belief in spiritual survival."

You can rest of the interview here. Also, while there is much to comment about in the above quote, Chris Brady does a fantastic job of lending some thoughtful comments... so I point you there.