Search

Bo Sanders: Public Theology

updating & innovating for today

Open Search

>Relationship

>

There is a reason that relationship is so central to our religion, to reading the Bible, and to prayer.  We will focus on prayer next week, but this week I wanted to look at the relational aspect of reading the Bible as a tie-in to what we have been talking about for the past 5 weeks.
    In the past, much of church history has been focused on A) Status and B) Substance. Now, it is my conviction that these are not the concerns of the Hebrew mind (in the Old Testament) nor are they the concerns of Jesus (in the Gospels) and they will not continue to be the concerns of the world that is becoming (our post-Modern world).

    That means that the only place where it has been a primary concern is with 1) those Greek  thinkers (substance) and Roman authorities (status) that come after the first century – and thus after the writing of those books that would come to be in the New Testament 2) those European systems ( in Italy then Germany then England, etc.) that led up to, and really came to fruition in, the Enlightenment (think Denominations). 
Communion
    So let’s take Communion as an example. Jesus had this meal. Whether you say that he observed it, celebrated it or initiated it – he used the moment to demonstrate and model ultimate servant-power (John 13). Jesus’ concern about communion was relationship. He even had the meal with a disciple that he knew would betray him (and one that he knew would deny him).  Jesus modeled relational truth. 
    In the 300-500 years after Jesus, the focus changed significantly. That is why – for even so many to this day – the main concern is  A) what it is and B) who is allowed to eat it.   That is why Substance and Status have supplanted Jesus’ concern – which was relationship. 
    That is why I think that whenever you eat a meal with someone and Christ’s love is in your heart – that is communion.You are having communion with them  – at least Level 1 communion. Now, if you agree with that and what to add to it an official meal of special bread and wine – that is fine. But if you want to move to that specific meal and special ingredients without the element of relationship – then I would have a problem. Especially if you then want to add a third level which is concerned with who is allowed to eat it (and who is not) and then who is allowed to serve it. 
    In fact, relationship is the main focus of so much of the Bible and we miss it when we use these lenses of Status and Substance. 
Trinity
    Look at the concept of the Trinity. The main point is that God is relationship. God is perfect relationship. But somehow in those years that followed Jesus’ time on earth – the main concern became Substance (is Jesus fully God and fully Man? )  and Status (Is the Holy Spirit equal with the other two members or not? ). Now, the whole point of a Three-in-One god is to form and inform us about the inter-relating of one to another. We miss the point of the Trinity (and the Bible)  when we look at Status and Substance.
Creation
    Look at Creation. The stuff that attracts so much attention and draws so many of the headlines (Creation vs. Evolution) misses the point of that section of scripture. It is important to know that the idea of Creation Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) never showed up in connection to the Genesis account until 200 years after Jesus.  That means that no Jewish Rabbi would have believed that before (or during) Jesus’ life. It also means that Jesus would not have believed in Creation Ex Nihilo.  God did not create the world out of nothing. 
    Go back and read that portion of scripture again. You will notice two things: first, that there were already substances present; second that God works with what is in order to bring forward something new. Then God gives that something new a responsibility (partnering in relationship) and then uses the something new to bring about yet a newer thing still. 
    So God makes the earth. Then God says to the earth ‘you bring forth plants’. Then God takes some earth and makes humans. Then God gives to the humans  responsibilities on earth.  
    The point is not the science behind creation – but ultimately God’s relationship to creation. God calls the earth good and it is noteworthy that God never says that creation is not good!   It is later that Substance and Status change the way we think about that. Substance says that the earth is “fallen” because of original sin (this is borrowed from Greek philosophy and does not come from the Bible). Status says that creation is lower than humans and therefor is of less value. Now, admittedly,  there are some words that are used in Genesis that can be read that way… but if you want to read them that way ,they do have to be interpreted that way. All I am saying is that they do not need to be interpreted that way!!
    I think that it is worth pausing and noticing that even our communion elements come up from the earth. The wheat for the bread and the grapes for the wine come from the soil – the earth. 
Resurrection
    I believe in the resurrection. The reason that I have been less dogmatic about it being a literal/physical resurrection than others is two-fold. 
First, I am driven by a desire for a BigTent Christianity where people who dialogue about the exact nature of this or that element of the Bible can still be included.
Secondly, I don’t think that that substance of Jesus resurrected body is the point of those stories. I think that the main point is how Jesus relates to us in resurrection. The experience of the disciples after the resurrection was of Christ’s presence with them – the veil had been torn in two and soon the Comforter would come in power (Acts 2). God’s spirit – the spirit of Christ – was out and about and at work in the world. 
    Just look at what the Apostle Paul would experience on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9).  Whatever Paul experienced was the real and post-resurrection Christ. It was enough to radically change his life and cause him to live for this cause and it would lead to his own imprisonment and death. The substance of the post-resurrection body is not the focus. Relationship is. God was in a new relationship with humanity. 
Faith
    I have tons and tons of examples, but I want to point out how not focusing on relationship effects even the way that we read specific verses in the New Testament.  There is a popular verse that is often quoted this way “God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purposes.”  That is based on a bad translation (King James Version). But that is not exactly how that verse reads and it certainly (even if it did read that way in English) does not mean that!
    But listen to the Revised Standard Version “ We know that in everything God works for the good with those who love him…” 
    God does not cause the things to work for us. Think about how mechanistic of view of the world produces a reading like that. 
    A more accurate way to think of it is “God works for the good with those who love God so that all things come to accomplish God’s purpose.” 
    First: It is God who works – not the things.     
    Second: God works with us to bring about God’s purposes.  
Reading the Bible with Relationship in mind affects so many things. The nature of the Trinity, the Creation narrative, the Incarnation, Communion and prayer … just to name a few!! 
    The bottom line is ‘how God relates to us’. Everything else is fun and function. Realizing this is one of the most important things that has happened to me and my walk with the Lord. I wish I had know this 15 years ago. I don’t regret what I learned and everything that I was taught – but I do wish that less attention had been paid to SUbstance and Structure and more had been paid to relationship. 
    Next week we I hope to address Salvation and Prayer. Please feel free to posts any comments or questions. I love the dialogue.
2

>Religion in America

>

I am fascinated by what is going on right now in Global culture and in North America.  There is great research behind what Robert Putnam is saying.
    His take on the Culture Shocks from the 60’s, the after-shock reaction of the Religious Right in the 80’s and the current reaction to this by the young ‘nones’ is eye opening. There is a shifting and a settling happening that is noteworthy.
This is not simple stuff.  It is complex and it is multi-layered.  The part that is most intriguing to me is the trough that is forming – the gap between the far right and the far left (with few left in the middle).  
    This is an emerging theme that is showing up in many arenas.
    It is the collapse of the Bell Curve logic and in our era, and it is an increasing trend. The Trough is showing up in church attendance, political involvement, and views on marriage.

Here is his article from the LA Times two weeks ago.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/17/opinion/la-oe-1017-putnam-religion-20101017
Here is the rundown of a talk that he gave last week:
http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2010/10/21/how-religion-is-transforming-america/politics/
Here is the video of that interview:
http://zocalopublicsquare.org/fullVideo.php?event_year=2010&event_id=444&video=&page=1
0

>Doubting the Devil

>

Next week will get to the Heart of Relationship and why  it is the single most important thing to know about when reading the Bible. But I just wanted to wrap up this conversation that we have been having about doubting the devil .

  I have four examples of the problem and then some possible solutions. First up is bit from the Edict of Worms when the Protestant Reformation was ramping up.

Here’s a sampling of the Edict’s pronouncements about Martin Luther from 1521:
To put an end to the numberless and endless errors of the said
Martin, let us say that it seems that this man, Martin, is not a man but
a demon in the appearance of a man, clothed in religious habit to be
better able to deceive mankind, and wanting to gather the heresies of
several heretics who have already been condemned, excommunicated, and
buried in hell for a long time. Let us add to this all the heresies
recently brought in by him to be the source of all iniquity and rubbish
and to destroy the Catholic faith. As an evangelical preacher he labors
to trouble and demolish all religious peace and charity and all order
and direction in the things of this world. And finally, he brings
dishonor upon all the beauty of our Holy Mother Church.
    Secondly, The new PBS documentary called “God in America” has been incredible. One little snippet that caught my attention was when the American Civil War kicked off and preachers on both sides were quoting Bible verses (Old and New Testament) to justify their positions for and against human slavery. The narrator was explaining that both sides thought that God was on their side and the segment was really focusing on the North (who would prove victorious), then said “There was a war in heaven – it was between the Archangel Michael and his angels, and the Devil and all of his.” There was no explanation beyond that. Was the Devil from the South? Was the Devil fighting for the South? Was the war on earth just a mirror of something that was going on in the heavenlies? 
    Third, I had a phone call a couple of years ago with a girl from the youth group at our church. She was spending the summer working at a Christian summer camp.  A stomach bug had been imported with one of the teenagers who has shown up for Teen camp and on the second day a number of people woke up vomiting.  It sounded pretty awful. So they started to pray – intercessory prayer – against the Devil and demons and that kind of thing. 
    More and more people got sick, kids and counselors, and by the end of the third day they had to call off the camp and ship everyone home.   At this point in the story she says “After this week – I really believe in spiritual warfare. I do not doubt that there is a real Devil.”  She was one of only a handful of workers that was not sick and so that small group was in change of washing all the buildings with bleach – walls, floors, bathrooms etc. 
    Fourth (and lastly) the same week as the Camp Vomit fiasco, there was a terrible murder in the local news. A mentally disturbed man, recently released form an institution [the news was not clear if it was prison or a mental ward],  broke into the home of a lesbian couple, beat them, tied them up, and did terrible terrible things to the two ladies. One of them escaped while he was torturing her partner. The women who escaped lived. Her partner did not. People were calling this man the Devil – the reasoning was ‘who else could do this type of thing’. 
    When I put these four stories together we see that Martin Luther was the devil for questioning the authority and power of a church that was in perhaps the most corrupt time in its history. Southern Americans (slaveholders and soldiers) are the Devil (or his demons).  A stomach bug is the Devil (or at least his doing). Finally – a mentally disturbed man is the Devil. 
    So when someone says “But you believe that the devil is a real being and not just the personification of the worst of humanity right?”  I have to respond : until we take a hiatus from blaming everything on the devil and take a look at human issues like our responsibility to challenge the status quo,  our opportunity for all humanity to live free, to do what we are capable of with contagious diseases and mental disorders… I reserve the right to be an agnostic on the issue of the Devil. 
    For now on,  I am going to point to systemic abuses (Martin Luther) misuses of the Biblical text (justify slavery) the realities of contagious viruses (anyone following Africa in the news?) and ramifications of imprisoning the mentally ill (and the transfer of our prisons to corporations instead of the State) and say that the Devil is a personification of the worst potential of humanity first. 
We can deal with everything else  or anything else second.
Here is why I think that it is so important to get this right:
    I listened to an old sermon this past week where I talked about the enemy of our soul and the realities of neglecting that aspect of our story.  It really brought home the seriousness and consequences of getting this one right. SO let me be crystal clear about this.
    I believe that life is a story. It is not a game to won or lost; a test to be passed; or a competition to get the most. It is not a set of rules to followed or a list of things to be accomplished.  Life is a story. 
    I believe that this story has evil in it.  I do not think that what we can see is all there is. There is more going on in the world than science has access to.
    I believe that this sabotage comes early and attacks our glory – the area that God most wants to use us (in strength and weakness). Usually the areas that we struggle to live the life we want are areas that have been assaulted early and often. I do not think that this is random or coincidental. 
   I believe that as Christ we tempted in the wilderness, as Peter was told to ‘get behind me’, and as Judas gave in – that the temptation is twofold: 
A) we are tempted to use our gifts-talents-strengths-passions-skills for our own benefit and not for the way that God wants to use them to make the world better for others
B) we are tempted to take the shortcut / easy road and not to trust God as people of faith. This is when we take matters into our own hands. 
    If we begin by 1) acknowledging that the Devil is a personification of the worst of humanity and 2) admitting that how the Devil works is to tempt us to use our gifts on ourselves and to take the short-cut and not trust God as people of faith by taking matters into our own hands… THEN we can talk about some big bad guy who is an ancient fallen angel and the super-natural enemy of God who controls the powers of the world by pulling the strings behind the scenes. 
    Otherwise I think that it would be wise for us to lay off the boogie-man stuff and concentrate on the evil that we can see and those things that we do have access to in our natural abilities. 
2

>Spending my time: PhD

>

I am  very excited to be in a Practical Theology program.  The idea behind this is exhilarating to me and I look forward to the future part of the course work that focuses on the Practical part of Theology!
[I have heard so many times, by everyone from District Superintendents to the grocery-bag packers at the supermarket, that Practical Theology is an oxymoron: there is nothing practical about Theology. This is exactly why I am hoping to be part of the change. ]
I was reflecting this week about what has been getting the lion’s share of my attention over the last several months. Four major categories emerged.
Biblical Studies: I am fascinated both with the depth of investigation that scholars put into the text,including work behind the text, and how little of that seems to play a role in the life of the average congregation.  There is gap. It is wide.  I am afraid that it is widening into a gulf.
Church History: I have come to love and embrace church history. I think that it is more than illuminating about where we have arrived and what we have arrived with. It turns out that my former hatred of church history was a naive reaction against dogmatic uses of church history to dominate people of other opinions. I had unfortunately given in to ‘bumper sticker’ understandings and cliches that are nothing more than boiled down (maybe water downed) bullet-points and slogans used for winning arguments.
Philosophy: It turns out that philosophy has and continues to play as important a role in the Christian faith as the Bible does. It is the lens through which each generation reads the Bible and decides how to behave. It goes far beyond John 1, Acts 17, and Romans 5! It is barely acknowledged in the Creeds and Councils that led up to Chalcedon’s proclamations. I might go as far as to say that the Bible is merely a paint job on the car of the church – a car that is designed, manufactured,and powered by philosophy.
Inter-religious Dialogue: In a pluralistic world where we are inter-related and hyper-connected as never before, inter-religious dialogue is somewhere between vital and essential. The old boundaries of the Middle Ages and the definitions constructed under Colonialism will not suffice in the world that is becoming. Things have changed. Things need to change more.
    I was a little frustrated the other day and was wondering when I get down to the actual subject that is the title of my program. So I went to the library and got a well known book on Practical Theology. It turns out that these four themes that I have spending all of my time on are important fields and disciplines that a Practical Theologian needs to have in  her or his tool belt!  When one come to the task of describing and constructing a theology for congregational or community practices, you want everyone of these approaches and perspectives!
    I am not spending my time any different than I was before – but now I am enjoying it so much more. I have embraced Biblical scholarship, Church History, Philosophy and Inter-religious dialogue –  I am getting ready to do some practical theology!!
0

>Real Christians

>

 In this edition: Women’s Voices,  Real Christians and the conversation continues around those 4 (now 5) verses. 
Women’s’ Voices:  My friend Brittany Ouchida-Walsh was in the newest Emergent Village newsletter  [link] with a GREAT reflection about voices that have silenced for far too long.  She has an immense insight about things. She also offers quotes that help you see things from a different angle. On her website, I found this one that  I thought I would pass along: 
     “So every pregnant mother enacts the communion words, ‘Take, eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood.'” – Jean Shinoda Bolen
Real Christians: I got a note a couple of weeks ago that said ‘I have always divided churches into two categories : Bible believing and Not.’  This person went on to say really insightful things about their experiences and how their perspective has been challenged. 

    This got me thinking. Why DO we divide churches into those two camps?  Jesus doesn’t. 

Jesus says that at some point he is going to divide people up into two categories – but they are not based on believing the Bible – it will be based on how you treated other people (Matthew 25:31-46).  

    Why don’t we spit churches into Christ-behaving and Not – if we are going to split them up at all ?  My thought is that if we are going to introduce new categories – like “Bible-believing” and “Not” we should at least be required to integrate them into the categories of Christ. 

    Since I hate either/or  in/out  us/them two-categories (whether you call them binary or dualism or whatever)  here is my solution:  We make a chart that has 1 big square divided into  4 smaller squares. Across the top we put “Bible-literally” and “Not”. Then down the side we put “Christ-behaving” and “Not”.

    This will allow us to acknowledge that there are at least 4 types of Christians: those who take the Bible literally and behave like Christ,  Those that take the Bible literally and don’t behave like Christ, Those who don’t take the Bible literally and behave like Christ and Those who don’t take the Bible literally and don’t behave like Christ. 

    That would be more helpful (and more accurate) than this either/or thing that we do now.  I just think that at minimum we should use the categories and criteria that the Lord did  (a.k.a. the Sheep / Goats), even if want to integrate them into some criteria that we are after. 


The Conversation: My buddy Tim (a missionary) read my treatment of those 4 verses that we do the swap for [link] and said (basically) ‘that was great – but now that we know what they don’t mean, maybe you could throw out some suggestions of what they do mean…’ 

So I took up the challenge [link] last week and added a 5th verse for fun (Romans 10:9).  Here is Tim’s follow up note and my responses:  
Thanks for taking up the challenge my friend. Basically I like and agree with everything you’ve said.  
Let me respond to some of the thoughts: 
  1. 1)the governmental system stuff that you talk about is RIGHT ON.  When I read “Jesus for President” for the first time a lot of my impressions or ideas about this stuff was re-inforced, especially the Caesar is Lord issue. 
Shane Clairborne’s book “Jesus for President” [link] is one worth reading.  I would also put Warren Carter’s  “The Roman Empire and the New Testament” [link]  WAY at the front of my reading list if I were you. 
  1. 2)I still believe acknowledging the resurrection is a huge challenge for us but is essential in understanding God and being a Christian.  Even if our implications of the resurrection are a bit nuanced, for me, I still am with Paul in his ideas in 1 Cor. that without the resurrection of Christ we are left with a nice ethic but lacking the meta-physical power which sets this apart. 
    No doubt.  I am with you there.  I think that if you are going to be a Christian you have to have SOME belief in the resurrection – otherwise you are left with , as you say, a nice Ethic. 
    NOW – having said that… I have to clarify something. I have heard two good possibilities for the Resurrection that keep one squarely within the “ I believe” camp.  The first is called the ‘Empty Tomb’ camp and  is not really in need of any explanation. The second is called the ‘Presence’ camp and it holds that the Resurrected Jesus was the Presence of God whether or not there was a literal empty tomb.
    I know that this may sound weird to readers who are coming from a more conservative background – but you have to understand that for the last couple of hundred years in many Western churches (from Europe) there is a foundational belief in Enlightenment principles (like science) that you have to prove things. Since you can not prove the Resurrection and we don’t see many (or any) these days, then some have abandoned the literal Resurrection all together and other have had to kind of put it on the back shelf as simply a part of the tradition (the faith handed down).   
    This “Presence” approach allows believers who are coming from a more European perspective to reclaim the Easter story without abandoning or attacking the denomination or tradition that they came from – and I want to make room for them  in the conversation. 
    Now some people may jump and say “no that doesn’t count” but the more I have looked into it , the more I think that it qualifies as belief in the Resurrection.  Just keep two things in mind:
A) whatever kind of a body that Jesus had after the resurrection could walk through walls and stuff (John 20:19 for example). That body was not limited by physical space and time though it had physical properties.  
B) whatever the Apostle Paul encountered on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9)  was not a physical  body and yet it was certainly the Resurrected Christ. 
    I think that this is an important point to make because we are not having this conversation in a vacuum. It has been dominated for 400 years by Enlightenment Europeans who were working off of there own frameworks and agendas. So I do not think that we should allow them to control the conversation.  We need to address 1) scripture and 2) reality as we now understand it … in order to address our desire for a Big Tent Christianity and also to try to qualify as many believers in Christ as want to be qualified.  
 
  1. 3)I completely agree with the fact that being saved doesn’t mean simply getting a ticket to heaven.  This is horrible theology, a terrible reading of John 3, and frankly a very limited understanding of Jesus.  That being said, I don’t think that these texts necessarily oppose someone going to heaven after they die, I just don’t think that heaven is the central idea or even the goal in these selected texts.  
    Good clarification.  I certainly do not want to get rid of heaven after you die. My only point was that this is not the central concern of these texts.  I think that reading them in such a way dishonors them and misses the point. 

  1. 4)With you on the wide gate, on the thirst for power, on the love of violence, etc. 
    It has actually gotten to the point that over the last three years I have become suspicious that Jesus is nothing more than a hood-ornament on the Cadillac of Empire for many christians. Jesus said  Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? …”   
    I am planning a post leading up to Christmas to ask “Why do you think Jesus came ?”.  Modern Christianity  seems to have reverted to a form of nationalism, superstition, and greed … I honestly think that it is almost as if Jesus never came.  It would be no different if we just took all of the Greek & Roman mystery cults (denominations) and slapped Jesus’ name on them – as a title – but kept the basic framework, priorities, and behaviors without much alternation.  
    This is what Dallas Willard calls “Vampire Christians” – who want Jesus for his blood and little else. So little of what we do is based on Jesus – he is not even an Ethic for much of the western world. He is just a hood ornament on the giant machine of consumerism, military violence, and colonialism.  It’s almost as if Jesus never came and never said the stuff that he said and did the things that he did.  We often put “Christian” in the title and then do exactly what we would have done otherwise and when somebody says ‘I’m not sure that is Jesus’ way’ we say “in the Old Testament” or we say “in the Constitution”.  

  1. 5)In the John 14 passage I think you’ve said some important things.  These verses are definitely part of a conversation and shouldn’t be proof-texted (just like any other verses that we do this with).  I definitely don’t think that the primary purpose here is restrictive, that is, against other people.  However, I don’t think it doesn’t inherently create some restrictions by nature of the uniqueness of Christ.  What I mean is, even if you interpret the “way of Christ” differently (not as a ticket to heaven but as a lifestyle), you are still asserting that someone is following this way in order to access an intimate relationship with the father.  So, for me, to use your example, if a Hindu hates Jesus or the idea of Jesus, it is still problematic for me.  I definitely have friends, and maybe you’re in this category, who I love and respect, who believe that Jesus is the way in spite of the fact that the people who are seeking religion don’t acknowledge him.  In other words, his power supersedes ignorance.  Of course this is possible and God can do and does do more than we understand.  But personally for me it’s too risky to leave someone in a situation, knowing and experiencing nothing of Jesus and hoping that as a spiritual person they have this intimate relationship with the Father (we can just leave heaven out of it, no problem). Does that make sense?  
    Yeah. That is good. I think that the Way of Christ is the best thing in the world. I believe that the Jesus Way is better than every other.   Which is exactly why we need to stop quoting “I am the way” as a proof-text for why other religions are not going to Heaven.  All I am saying is : that is not what that verse is about.  We love to say “Jesus is the way” and this may or may not be connected to actually doing it Jesus’ way. 
Sorry to go on and on and on but basically this is the fundamental reason why I am in France in spite of the fact that people are cared for better than the States, there are fewer poor, most people are pacifists, green, etc.  In other words, in many ways they are advancing the kingdom.  But when I speak with them there is emptiness in the act, a void in spite of the heart for others, and a need for Christ to be central.  Sure we might talk about heaven at some point, but I’m certainly not leading with that.  I’d rather talk about the way of Jesus, but I need to talk about it, even if they’re Muslim, Hindu, atheist whatever.
    I love that you are there.  I love that you follow the way of Jesus.  I love that you want people who already do so many good things to do them with Jesus’ heart. That is awesome. I am with you 100%. 
    I think that you have real insight in the North American situation where so many who claim to follow Jesus don’t do those things.  
Great post, thanks for taking the time to do it and for offering solutions.   Appreciate you!
   Oh no , the pleasure is all mine! Thanks for the thoughtful response (and the challenge) . I am SO glad that you are doing what you are doing.
0

>Top 10 books

>

These are the books that I have referenced more in the first 1o months of this year than any other.  (I have linked the titles to Amazon)
Top 10
Living in Color by Randy Woodley (Culture – Church)
Making Room for Leadership by Mary Kate Morse (Leadership)
Cross & Covenant by Larry Shelton (Theology)
The Next Evangelicalism by Soong-Chan Rah (Church)
The Great Emergence by Phyllis Tickle (Church – History)
A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren (Theology)
Whose is Afraid of Post-Modernism by John Caputo (Theology)
Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism by Nancey Murphy (History)The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell (Culture)
The Starfish and Spider by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom(Culture)
Honorable Mentions:
The Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Church)
Collapse by Jared Diamond (History)
0

>Wide is the Road

>

Sometimes you read a passage of scripture and assume that you know what it is talking about.  Here is one of my favorites:

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    I use to think I knew what that verse meant.

    But then I found out that “Caesar is Lord” was something that people confessed in the time and around the area in which this part of the Bible was written. It turns out that hundreds of years before Jesus was even born that Caesars were given titles like Son of God, Savior of the world, King of Kings, and many other that would be familiar to anyone who has read the Christmas story. 
    That is the funny thing – I am always saying that all content happens in a context and this is a great example!  Jesus is Lord was not created in a vacuum.  It was ‘borrowed’ from an actually saying and converted (as it were) to a political statement of subversion and disobedience .  Following Jesus is political rebellion. 
    The writers of Scripture took the famous titles used for Caesar and then ascribed them to a peasant from the backwoods !  They were saying something.
    I also found out some other stuff – like believing in God raising anyone from the dead was a real issue both for the Jewish mind ( Sadducees / Pharisee spit.  see: Acts 23:8 ) and also for the Greek / Roman mind (see the Gnostic / Docetist split).  So to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead was really to view reality and physical / meta-physical things in a definite way. 
    To believe that God raised Jesus from the dead is to say “there is more to reality that simply what I can see”. This is rooted in history (and a historical event).
    Thirdly, as I have talked about before – being saved doesn’t just mean that your soul is going to heaven after you die.  Salvation in the original exodus motif is liberation from an oppressive Empire (Egypt at that point). Later when Israel had settled from it’s wanderings, it took on a ‘chicken in every pot’ sort of ‘everyone should have enough’ societal component.  Then, in Christ salvation became a transformational understanding of covenant. It was covenantal and it included all humanity. Later through church history salvation took on a Church/State component.   Recently salvation started to change into an Enlightenment understanding where salvation was of an individual. 
    I’m not making a statement about those transformations.  I just wanted to point it out, for the purpose of our passage.  
    So what those three elements come together to mean is: the government systems of this world are not my master (Jesus is Lord) , and there is more to reality that just what you can see (Jesus was raised from the dead) – that understanding then enables you to walk the way of Jesus (to be saved). 
    That is quite bit different than “I prayed a prayer one time, and I mentally acknowledge that a long time ago God did something powerful and so now,  the part of me that is not my body will go to heaven after I die.”  
Lets get to those four verses 
Matthew 7
13  Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
    We talked before about the danger of swapping out ‘wide gate’ for hell and ‘narrow path’ for heaven.  No – Jesus was saying that the roads of the empire (the system ) are made wide and made smooth. They are the roads of the masses. They are the road of commerce. These wide roads lead to walled cities that have wide gates because that is the way that most people live.
    They are contrast to the roads made by indigenous people. When Rome makes roads, they bring a legion of soldiers and make a road capable of hauling their carriages. They did this so that the Roman Legion could get to even the furthest region of the Empire and put down any rebellion or uprising with swift and massive violence. The saying was “Rome makes a desert and calls it peace.”  
The Roman roads were made for and by the military (this is how empire works) and then commerce was able to utilize the road to export their business to the far corners of the empire. 
    Jesus was contrasting roads made for and by the military with those made by walking. Indigenous roads were smaller – like glorified walking paths that had been improved on. They led to much smaller towns with smaller walls and thus smaller gates. 
    Jesus wasn’t saying “Many people are going to hell and that is easy to do (the wide road) but only a few are going to heaven (the narrow gate)”.   
    Jesus is saying  Many people live by the law of empire with military violence and colonial commerce. Don’t walk that obvious road – it leads to destruction. As Jews we have a path that is made by our people – it may look small and humble but it leads to life. Rome’s way is popular and most participate – God’s way is a backroad and not many choose to take it.
John 3:3
Jesus says to this religious professional “no one can see kingdom of God,unless you are born again.”  (or born from above)
    Jesus was not saying “you must have an internal individual experience so that after you die the part of you that is not your body can go to heaven”.  Jesus is telling a man who had the public position of being religious “You have start again – you have to approach it like a child – you have to be vulnerable … like a baby” 
    Jesus wasn’t being literal. You don’t actually have to be born a second time. The Bible is not meant to be read literally in places like this.  Jesus was not saying that every human being must have an experience where they realize that they are dirty sinner and repent of their sins by saying them out loud and repeating a prayer that asks Jesus into their heart. 
    Jesus is saying if you want to see what God is doing (the kingdom) then you will have to start again – don’t assume that you are already in and that you already get it. Begin again for the first time. 
John 14:6
6  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7  If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
    As in the John 3 passage, John 14 happens in a conversation where Jesus’ dialogue partners are having trouble understanding what he is saying.  
    Jesus is talking about how his father’s house has many rooms and how is going away to prepare a place for them.  Thomas says ‘we don’t know where you are going and thus we don’t know the way’.
    Let’s be clear on this 1) This is part of a conversation  2) this conversation happened in a context where Jesus (the master) had just washed his disciples feet in act of true humility where the status quo of leadership, titles and privilege were turned upside down 3) Jesus is not talking about why there will be no Hindus in heaven. 
    Jesus is not talking about Hindus.  That is not what he is addressing when he says that the is the way to having a relationship with the Father.  And let’s be honest – while as the Eternal Son and Second member of the Trinity in heaven he would have known about Hindus – and Muslims did not even exist yet – as the incarnate Christ he may not have even known about Hindus and certainly could not have known about Muslims.  So he is not telling us why no one is going to heaven except Christians. 
    Jesus is saying “There is lots of room for many different types of people in my Father’s house – and if you want to have a relationship with the Father like I have  (intimacy and power) then you have to walk in my way with me”. 
    The irony here is twofold: 1) many preachers have used this verse to say why Hindus are not going to heaven (as well as many others)  2) while they loudly proclaim that Jesus is the way – they do not walk in Jesus’ way of servant leadership, humility and turning over the status quo when it comes to status and power. 
    Jesus isn’t talking about heaven and hell.  Jesus is talking about the Way of Christ and how that is the way that one comes to have the kind of intimacy that he has with the Father. 
We might as just address the nature of the text as long as we are looking at the text.
2 Timothy 3
15  and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    It probably goes without saying at this point – but this passage is not saying that the Bible is Infallible or Inerrant or any of those words that we insist on and call people heretics for not believing in the modern era. 
    It is simply saying that we believe that our Scriptures come from God – they are infused with God’s breath and life – that they are extremely useful for the work of the church and that  they are empowering and corrective – that they are authoritative for what God intended them. 
    In our scriptures, Adam was God breathed but not infallible (as Dan so eloquently pointed out).
______
    So if we take the five passages of scripture from today and put them all together what we come out with is :
The government systems of this world are not our master, and there is more to reality that just what you can see – understanding that enables you to walk the way of Jesus (salvation from the way of this world).
Many people live by the law of empire with military violence and colonial commerce. Don’t walk that obvious road – it leads to destruction. People who live on the fringes and margins of Empire have a path that is made by people in a covenant with God (not ruling by violence and power but instead by love) – it may look small and humble but it leads to life. Rome’s way is popular and most participate in it – God’s way is a backroad and not many choose to take it.
If you want to see what God is doing (the kingdom) then you will have to start again – don’t assume that you are already in and that you already get it. Begin again for the first time.
There is lots of room for many different types of people in the Father’s house – and if you want to have a relationship with the Father like Jesus had with the Father (intimacy and power) then you have to walk in Jesus’ way.
We believe that our Scriptures come from God – they are infused with God’s life and animated by God’s wind – that makes them extremely useful for the work of the church and that  they are empowering and corrective – That they are authoritative for what God intended them for they are inspired by God’s very revelation. 
    I know that it is tough to read a scripture again for the first time. This reading is more Jewish, it is more organic, and it is more relational. All I ask is that you consider starting over (again) and seeing if there might be anything to it.
1

>Bob Marley reads the Bible

>

As it is with all actual conversations, this one has taken some twists and turns. If you missed the fall out from ‘the Devil is in the Details’ last week , we talk about reading the history parts of the Bible as history, the poetry as poetry, and try to make space for those who read some parts literally and others who read those parts (the Book of Job, Jonah, Ester, Genesis 1-3, etc) more figuratively or as parable. 
    I wanted to just run over a couple of thoughts about all of that and next week we will get back to those 4 verses about the Kingdom and life before you die (from two weeks ago).
Figures of Speech
    Sometimes we are incredibly intuitive about interpreting lyrics of songs and stories.  Sometimes were are not. When it comes to interpreting passages of the Bible it can be a steep incline because we are translating through A) two jumps in language (translation)  B) two jumps in culture   C) two centuries of distance.   That is a big deal and can not be overestimated. 

    It is impossible to overstate the difference when it comes to  Jesus saying “I will build my church and the gates of  hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18) .  The disciples who originally heard this and those of us who read it A) in English  B) on the other side of the Atlantic and C) two thousand years of church history later are not having the same experience with this idea . We live in towns that do not have walls or gates and they did not know of the Roman Catholic church.  So it goes without saying that interacting with that saying is different for us than it was for them. 
    Some people object to the idea of interpreting passages in the Bible.  Jonah and Job are my two favorite examples. My feeling on the matter is that if you want to take those stories and literal, that is fine with me – just realize that it is not the only way to interpret those texts and that ,in fact, if you are interested – there is an entire library of resources from history about how to read those texts within their literary genre. 
    To me, it is like people who listen to Bob Marley singing “No women No Cry” and think that he is saying that if you don’t have a women – you won’t cry.  They miss that he is singing TO a women about living in a government slum. 
    Things have to be interpreted. They are written to be. The authors expect it. They build it in. It is part of art and beauty and symbol and style. 
    That is why we read history as history – and poetry as poetry – and apocalypse as apocalypse.  It is also why we don’t read them as newspaper reports… because they were not written to be.  
Culture
    Oftentimes when people object the idea of doing any of this with the Bible, it is helpful to point out verse in the Christian new testament that they can recognize themselves in. 
Example 1 
Romans 16:16   Greet one another with a holy kiss.
1 Corinthians 16:20   Greet one another with a holy kiss.
2 Corinthians 13:12   Greet one another with a holy kiss.
1 Thessalonians 5:26    Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.
So four times scripture tells us to do this and we as North American christians don’t. Why is that?   It is not because we are not ‘Biblical’.  It is because we understand that it is cultural. 
Example 2
1 Timothy 2:7-9 (New International Version)
7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.
 8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
 9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.
    So  Paul is saying this as an Apostle.  It does not seem to be up for debate or something that will change over time…. and yet we do not (generally) lift our our hands when we pray – we bow our heads and close our eyes.  Why do we do that?   Bowing your head and closing your eyes is not a Biblical way to pray.  Of the many postures of prayer in the Bible – it is not one of them. 
    Godly women braid their hair.  They wear gold.  They own pearls.  Why is that?   It’s not unbiblical… it’s cultural.
    and yet when it comes to women being pastors or women who were divorced before they were christians wanting to serve communion… godly men who do not lift their hands when they pray or greet me with a kiss… transform and become biblical literalists. 
    And this to me is the problem.  We have not thoughtfully approached how we interpret scripture. We have lazily adopted what we were told and we have reacted.  I am not sure that it is working for us – especially not in the modern world. 
Interpretation
    I had a conversation with someone the other day about Moses.  I love Moses.  I think that most people I talk to have a real fondness for his story.   But there is a perfect example of interpretation in the passage about his calling.
    You will remember the incident of the burning bush and you might also remember the part where he throws down his staff (he was a shepherd after all) and it becomes a snake, then he picks up the snake and it becomes a stick of wood again.  
    Now those of use who read that part as literal history have a little problem when it come to application.  What is the application of that story?   We are not looking for burning bushes, not literally – we are looking for signs from god.  In fact, I would council someone who was looking for a sign from god to NOT look for burning bush.  1) because it only happened once in all of scripture – so you could be waiting a while  2) you don’t live in a place that has those same kind of bushes – and god works with what you have in your context. 
    and when it comes to that snake staff – what is the application for the modern day believer?  Are we to throw sticks on the ground in front of government officials? (like Moses did to Pharaoh)   Are we to pick up snakes if we are hiking and need a walking stick?  NO!   The application for those of us who read this part literally is to believe that ordinary things can take on extraordinary capabilities when god is involved. 
    So my friend is not so sure about the historical accuracy of the events of Genesis and Exodus.  He thinks that they are more like parables.  What is his application for these two passages?  The same as mine!   To trust that God gives signs as well as callings   and that ordinary instruments can do extraordinary things when God is involved.  
    You see, I take a literal story and derived spiritual principles out of it.  I read it literally and then translate it  poetically or allegorically.   My friend reads it allegorically and applies it as such.  BUT we end up with the same thing!!
    That is why I say that there has to be room at the table for those who read the Bible very differently – I don’t think that reading a section of scripture like the Exodus as a certain type of parable disqualifies you from A) being a christian or B) contributing to the conversation.
I think that the burning bush incident really happened.  My friend is not so sure. But either way – I am not looking for burning bushes to decide how to follow god. and neither is my friend. I could be a stinker and say that he does not believe the Bible – but he could say that I do not throw sticks on the ground and even if I did they would not turn into snakes – so he could question how “Biblical” I am anyway…  for all our bluster about “believing the Bible” or “reading it literally”  the truth is that we follow God the exact same way!!
0

>The Devil is in the Details

>

Last week we looked at injecting meaning into the text or substituting understandings for the actual words of scripture.
    Next week I want to look at possible implications for reading those four verses differently than many of us were taught to.
    But this week I want just give a couple more examples of how we might be projecting an outside system onto that which is revealed in scripture. I want to do this by looking at four devilish passages that seem to be read on autopilot by many that I hear quoting them.
    The first is in Genesis 3 – right at the beginning of the book.  “1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
    Why do we think that this was anything other than a talking snake? Conservatives and Fundamentalist claim to read the Bible literally –  often regarding Genesis 1 and 2 and the creation story.  Then we get to Genesis 3 and we don’t continue with the literal hermeneutic… we do something. 
     What is that thing we are taught to do?  

    We swap out what is in the text for an interpretation we import from some other system.  We see “snake” and swap out “the devil”.   Why do we do that?  What is the mechanism that allows us to do that?  It is not an organic reading of the text.  It certainly is not reading the Bible literally!  It is an interpretation. 
    and that is my only point. No one reads the Bible literally. You’re not suppose to. It was written to be interpreted.  That is the whole point of using genres like poetry and prophecy. It is required with many of the genres used in the writing of the Bible.  Genesis 3 is not a newspaper report. 
Matthew 16
    Jesus is talking about his journey that will lead to his death.  22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
    Did Jesus think that Peter was the devil? Had Peter morphed into the ghoulish Lord of the Netherworld?  Was Peter possessed by a demonic force?  Not exactly. 
    Peter was speaking to and encouraging the very thing that Jesus was most tempted by: taking that easy way. Not ‘drinking for the cup’ of suffering was the great struggle ( we see this is passages like john 17 where Jesus is wrestling with God [not literally of course – it’s a  figure of speech] in prayer) .   So our greatest temptation that takes us away from the will and way that God has for us is personified as ‘the devil’. 
    This, I think, is what happens is ‘the Last Supper’ John 13:27 (NIV) “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.”  Now did the most powerful demonic ancient fallen angel that commands the dark minions personally enter into the physical body of Judas?  That might be overdoing it.   No – Judas gave over his will to that route that was his greatest temptation. 
    If you follow what I am saying here, think about Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. Phillip Yancey says in “The Jesus I Never Knew” that the real issue on the table [again not literally – just a figure of speech] is not whether Jesus was the messiah but rather what type of messiah he would be. Would he be one who took the easy road?  In that sense when the devil says ‘if you are the son of god’  it really indicates ‘since you are the son of god’. His identity was not being decided. That was secure.  His route was what was being decided.
Ephesians 6:12 
    12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
    This passage is often quoted in terms of “spiritual warfare” which is another way of classifying a certain type of praying.   It can be confusing because the verse right before this says “Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.”   The key word there for many is devil.
    But here is the thing that I hope you notice.  In verse 12 it is not talking about the devil. It is talking about the devil’s scheme… and then notice what it actually says: rulers, authorities, dark powers of this world are in one category. Then it says “and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” which means that rulers, authorities, and dark powers of this world are not spiritual.  
That gives us three categories:  1) flesh and blood  2) spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms  and 3) rulers, authorities, dark powers of this world.   So what are these?  Well, they are not flesh and blood (people) and they are not spirits (or demons) – they are governments, courts, corporations, etc. 
    As long as christians continue to think that this is the devil that is being talked about – some nefarious  dark fallen angel who is plotting humanities doom with army of demonic  hordes… (very Roman imagery by the way if you think about the barbarians who lived in darkness and threatened Rome’s civilization light)  – as long as we keep picturing that cartoony character we never get down to asking the real question: how is evil carried out in our world: could it be governments, courts, and corporations ? 
    but as long as christians think that it is some dark under-lord of another realm – they wholeheartedly turn a blind eye to the systems, structures and institutions that oppress and suppress humanity into bondage. 
    We could look at passages like Luke 10 , the sending out of the 72, where it says17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”  18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.
    Jesus isn’t saying “along time ago in a galaxy far away I saw Satan – who was an angel – fall from heaven to earth and become the character that you know as the devil”.  He was saying “while you were out on this training assignment I saw dark authority lose it’s power – now get it: nothing will harm you”.  
    Isaiah 14 is the other place that we get some of our thinking.  But go back and read it and see if it’s the kind of newspaper report that is to be read literally. 
    We could look at passages like Job where ‘hasatan’ (the accuser in the original language) might actually be someone who works for god in that story.  It would lead us to talk about two things : a) that the ‘devil’ is called the false accuser later in another drama (Revelation 12) and b) that both Job and Revelation are not newspaper reports and that maybe we should be careful about deriving doctrine from their literal reading. 
    Look – I know that I have been all over the place with this one but here is the bottom line: If you think that what is wrong with the world is that the a talking snake was really a fallen angel in disguise and tricked the first humans …  you are not reading the Bible literally.  You can say that you are – but you are fooling yourself.  You are interpreting.
    and as long as your interpreting, I am suggesting that you may want to update those tools by which you interpret so that  when we read passages like 1 John 3:8“Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”  You don’t think hoofs and horn and red capes and pitchforks… but you understand that there is a devilish scheme at work in the world – it’s not by a single sinister character called Satan but instead it is rulers, authorities, and dark powers of this world.  Then we ask “ are the governments, courts, corporations part of that?”   We can ask “ are the systems, structures and institutions that oppress and suppress humanity part of this?”.
    But as long as we keep thinking “dark lord of the under-world” we allow the schemes of the devil (that Romans 6 is talking about) to prosper.  Instead, try thinking about it as a personification of the worst of humanity – a path that takes us away from justice, rightness and the way that God would have us go. 
 
0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑