A Prayer of Thanksgiving

Brownscombe, (The Pilgrim's) First Thanksgiving

The Lord be with you.

And also with you.

Lift up your hearts.

We lift them to the Lord.

Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.

It is right to give him thanks and praise.

It is right, and a good and joyful thing, always and every-

where to give thanks to you, Father Almighty, Creator of

heaven and earth.

Accept, O Lord, our thanks and praise for all that you have

done for us. We thank you for the splendor of the whole

creation, for the beauty of this world, for the wonder of life,

and for the mystery of love.

We thank you for the blessing of family and friends, and for

the loving care which surrounds us on every side.

We thank you for setting us at tasks which demand our best

efforts, and for leading us to accomplishments which satisfy

and delight us.

We thank you also for those disappointments and failures

that lead us to acknowledge our dependence on you alone.

Above all, we thank you for your Son Jesus Christ; for the

truth of his Word and the example of his life; for his steadfast

obedience, by which he overcame temptation; for his dying,

through which he overcame death; and for his rising to life

again, in which we are raised to the life of your kingdom.

Grant us the gift of your Spirit, that we may know him and

make him known; and through him, at all times and in all

places, may give thanks to you in all things. Amen.

- The Book of Common Prayer, pp. 367 and 837

David Crowder Song & Video Mix

I Am a Seed

Heaven Came Down

Everything Glorious

Come Thou Fount

Never Let Go

I Saw the Light

Come and Listen

How He Loves
[may play together as stereo]

Sometimes

Shadows

To the Only God





Doxology

A Short History of Thanksgiving & Thanksgiving Theologies

In an earlier post Tom discusses How Does God Move and Act in the Universe? - "Eight Positions of Divine Sovereignty,"  reviewing each position one-by-one. Today he takes the practical side of this chart and makes it relevant through the American holiday of Thanksgiving, which many believe was an institution originating with the Pilgrims for their safe passage and survival in the wilds of early America thanks to their Indian friends, whose relationships with one another quickly soured (cf. The Landing of the Pilgrims and The Pilgrim's Mayflower Compact). But the early story of this holiday is is not true.

However, it was more true that the holiday became a later Calvinist thanksgiving established by the Puritans of New England based upon earlier English Protestant Reformations made under King Henry VIII. Whose radical Protestant reformation groups wished to remove the many Catholic holidays down to two special kinds of observances: "Days of Fasting," for remembering times of sorrow and destruction; and "Days of Thanksgiving and Feasting" for remembering especially noteworthy, and joyous, events.

Wikipedia - Thanksgiving (around the world)

In the United States, the modern Thanksgiving holiday tradition is commonly, but not universally, traced to a poorly documented 1621 celebration at Plymouth in present-day Massachusetts. The 1621 Plymouth feast and thanksgiving was prompted by a good harvest. Pilgrims and Puritans who began emigrating from England in the 1620s and 1630s carried the tradition of Days of Fasting and Days of Thanksgiving with them to New England. Several days of Thanksgiving were held in early New England history that have been identified as the "First Thanksgiving", including Pilgrim holidays in Plymouth in 1621 and 1623, and a Puritan holiday in Boston in 1631.^[9][10] According to historian Jeremy Bangs, director of the Leiden American Pilgrim Museum, the Pilgrims may have been influenced by watching the annual services of Thanksgiving for the relief of the siege of Leiden in 1574, while they were staying in Leiden.^[11] In later years, religious thanksgiving services were declared by civil leaders such as Governor Bradford, who planned a thanksgiving celebration and fast in 1623.^[12][13][14] The practice of holding an annual harvest festival did not become a regular affair in New England until the late 1660s.^[15]

Thanksgiving proclamations were made mostly by church leaders in New England up until 1682, and then by both state and church leaders until after the American Revolution. During the revolutionary period, political influences affected the issuance of Thanksgiving proclamations. Various proclamations were made by royal governors, John Hancock, General George Washington, and the Continental Congress,^[16] each giving thanks to God for events favorable to their causes.^[17] As President of the United States, George Washington proclaimed the first nation-wide thanksgiving celebration in America marking November 26, 1789, "as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God".^[18]

"The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth" (1914) By Jennie A. Brownscombe

Wikipedia - The Pilgrims (Thanksgiving)

"First Thanksgiving"

The autumn celebration in late 1621 that has become known as "The First Thanksgiving" was not known as such to the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims did recognize a celebration known as a "Thanksgiving", which was a solemn ceremony of praise and thanks to God for a congregation's good fortune. The first such Thanksgiving as the Pilgrims would have called it did not occur until 1623, in response to the good news of the arrival of additional colonists and supplies. That event probably occurred in July and consisted of a full day of prayer and worship and probably very little revelry.^[43]

The event now commemorated in the United States at the end of November each year is more properly termed a "harvest festival". The original festival was probably held in early October 1621 and was celebrated by the 53 surviving Pilgrims, along with Massasoit and 90 of his men. Three contemporary accounts of the event survive: Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford; Mourt's Relation probably written by Edward Winslow; and New England's Memorial penned by Plymouth Colony Secretary – and Bradford's nephew – Capt. Nathaniel Morton.^[44] The celebration lasted three days and featured a feast that included numerous types of waterfowl, wild turkeys and fish procured by the colonists, and five deer brought by the Native Americans.^[45]

Now let us turn our attention to the idea of Thanksgiving for both the religious, and non-religious alike, from a theological point of view....

R.E. Slater
November 28, 2013

Thanksgiving Theologies

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/thanksgiving_theologies/#.UpZjayQorlE.facebook

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 22, 2013

The Thanksgiving holiday is a terrific time to talk theology. But some theologies make more sense when offering thanks to our loving Lord.

Whether the setting is private or public, secular or sacred, hundreds of millions express gratitude. Often, even the day’s newscasts are laden with words of Holy appreciation.

For what, however, are we to thank God? What credit is due the divine? And which theologies best account for our desire to express gratitude?

Atheists

One group giving thanks consists of those who consider theology a mere form of language without a Referent. There is no Holy Reality, they say, to which their rituals relate. Theology is nothing more than anthropology. Giving thanks to God is merely an expression of a shared cognizance that life is not entirely within our control.

These folks can utter the words, "Thank you, God." But their disbelief in a Being exists to whom they should be grateful makes their theological sleight of hand far from satisfying.

A Controlling God

Many eager to express their indebtedness at Thanksgiving have ties to a second option in Christian theology. This view says God either directly or indirectly controls everything. When someone from this tradition says, "Thank you God for _____," he or she can fill the blank with any event.

Such events in that blank may be joyous and hopeful. But others are utterly evil and horrific. The God of this theology is responsible for respect and rape, peace and pain, havens and holocausts. God directly or indirectly controls everything.

Most in this theological tradition express gratitude at Thanksgiving only for events they deem good. Reminding them their view implies God is also responsible for evil dampens their holiday spirit.

Classical Free-will Theology

A third theological alternative at Thanksgiving takes the form of classical free-will theology. Those in this tradition believe they sidestep theological potholes in which other believers fall. They thank God for good and benevolent acts, while blaming free agents or natural forces for evil.

A closer look at classical free-will theology, however, reveals that the God of this theology is culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil. Classical free-will theology says God voluntarily gives freedom to others, but God essentially retains the ability to prevent genuine evils by taking that freedom away or failing to provide it in the first place.

The God with the capacity to control others entirely by either failing to provide, withdrawing, or overriding their freedom is ultimately culpable for failing to prevent dastardly deeds. Although free creatures initiate evil in classical free-will theology, the view implies that God is ultimately culpable for whatever occurs. After all, this God has the capacity to control others entirely should God so decide.

Those affirming classical free-will theologies could insert any event into the “Thank you God for _____” phrase. The God they espouse voluntarily permits free creatures to use their freedom to cause genuine evil.

Essential Kenosis Theology at Thanksgiving

A fourth option may be more adequate as the theological framework for this year’s Thanksgiving prayer. I call this framework “essential kenosis,” because it says God necessarily loves in each moment without ever trumping creaturely agency and/or freedom.

Essential kenosis says God’s eternal nature of love includes giving freedom and/or agency to creation. Because God’s nature is this kind of love, God cannot fail to provide, cannot withdraw, and cannot override the freedom and agency God necessarily gives.

Essential kenosis theology says God’s loving actions in each moment present a spectrum of possibilities to each creature for response. This is not deistic theology, in which God sits uninvolved on the sidelines.  Instead, God actively creates, provides, and interacts with creation.

Not only does the God of essential kenosis offer possibilities, God also calls creatures to respond to the best possibilities. Our loving Creator inspires and empowers creatures to love. Genuine evil results from the responses these creatures make contrary to God’s call.

Essential kenosis theology affirms at Thanksgiving that every good and perfect gift originates in God. God alone is the source of good. But the good things we enjoy also require creatures to respond well to God’s loving activity. In other words, we should thank God for being the source of goodness, but we should also thank the chef for making a great Thanksgiving meal!

Without scruples, the Christian adopting essential kenosis theology can offer thanks to God for being the source of all this good and not the one responsible for causing or allowing evil. She can also thank God for inspiring, empowering, and creating others to act in love, peace, and beauty.

A Short Thanksgiving Prayer

"Our loving God, in deepest gratitude, we thank You for the good you have done and are doing. We thank you for empowering and inspiring us to respond well to your perfect goodness. We are grateful now and forever. Amen!"

Peter Enns, "Scripture as a Polyphonic Text has not One, but Many Voices"

Genesis, creation, and two very different portraits of God (or, you can’t pin God down)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/11/genesis-creation-and-two-very-different-portraits-of-god-or-you-cant-pin-god-down/

 

by Peter Enns

November 17, 2013

Comments

 

Marc Zvi Brettler, Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Literature at Brandeis University, and also one of my co-authors on The Bible and the Believer: How to Read the Bible Critically and Religiously, recently posted some thoughts at TheTorah.com on the two creation stories in Genesis and how each portrays God differently. I think this will be of some help to many of you. He lays out succinctly (1) how to tell that there are in fact two creation stories, and (2) the different portraits of God in each.

 

He concludes by saying that the Bible as “a polyphonic text—a work that speaks in many voices… is the strength of the Bible rather than a weakness.” He continues,

 

Different people relate to one or another of these divine portraits—some of us are drawn to an approachable God, and being that is more be like us, while for others, a majestic, distant deity is more “Godlike.” Sometimes this can even shift with time and need—the very same person may sometimes need to connect to a God who walks about the Garden at the breezy time of the day (Gen 3:8), while at other times they may need to connect to a God who insists that all is ordered and in its place, good, indeed very good. Post-biblical Judaism used interpretation to discover different images for God in the Bible—no two parshanim or philosophers shared identical images of what God was like.  But this inability to pin God down, to create one single, uniform, univocal image of God already has strong roots in the biblical text itself.

 

Bottom line for Brettler: You can’t pin God down. The Bible tells us so.

 

Note how a Jewish reading celebrates diversity in Scripture–even diverse portraits of God–whereas Protestant readers, particular evangelicals and fundamentalists, tend to seek a singular, unified voice in Scripture–and do some fretting when they don’t find one.

 

Jewish readings of Scripture see diversity as a property of a sacred, inspired text. Conservative Protestants see it as a characteristic that is incompatible with divine inspiration and thus needing to be “solved.”

 

Personally, I have long thought that a Jewish approach to diversity in Scripture is preferable, given the degree of theological diversity that is self-evident in Scripture itself – the two creation stories being only a small sampling of that. That is why chapter three of Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament deals with theological diversity.

 

 

 * * * * * * * * * *

 

Brettler is also author of numerous other books, including How to Read the Jewish Bible, and co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament. He is also cofounder of Project TABS (Torah and Biblical Scholarship) -TheTorah.com.

 

 

 

Peter Enns Book Review: "The Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism," by Molly Worthen

evangelicalism and the uneasy relationship with academic freedom–more thoughts from Molly Worthen

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/11/evangelicalism-and-the-uneasy-relationship-with-academic-freedom-more-thoughts-from-molly-worthen/

 

by Peter Enns

November 8, 2013

Comments

 

In chapter 5 (“The Marks of Campus Conversion”) of her recently released book Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism (Oxford University Press), Molly Worthen looks at the founding of faith-based colleges in the early decades of evangeli-calism, and the resulting uneasy relationship between the evangelical quest for academic respectability and the academic freedom that is normally considered part and parcel of that quest. (All italics below are mine.)

 

“The one thing most crucial to professional higher education was the one thing that most stymied conservative Protestant educators: academic freedom. Behind their hand-wringing over the liberal arts [vs. a Bible-based education] and their resentment of meddling accreditors was the fear that these reforms would encourage teachers and students to prize intellectual exploration over evangelism and prefer the scientific method to proof texts. They would ask questions–and venture answers–that might place their salvation at risk” (p. 109).

 

“The inductive method [in general and particularly of Bible study] appeared to repair the fracture between faith and reason. It restored the Bible to its rightful authority while assimilating–yet restraining–human rationalism. Over the years, conservative Protestants would use it to hold at bay a range of ideas, condemning everything from Darwin’s evolution to inborn homosexual orientation as mere ‘theories,’ speculative hypotheses without basis in inductive study of facts. By this standard, academic freedom as understood in the modern secular university–the liberty to follow scientific observation to its conclusions even if those conclusions flout received wisdom, and the liberty to answer to no other authority than one’s colleagues–was not freedom at all, but slavery to human pride that would lead young Christians from the narrow path” (p. 110)

 

“Yet Christian colleges could not win the approval of secular accrediting bodies without raising faculty salaries…, standardizing tenure, and codifying operating procedures in a way that checked executive power and gave the faculty some voice and opportunity for professional development. Capricious tenure policies and unfair dismissal sometimes continued, but now that their schools were part of interstate associations that included public, Roman Catholic, and mainline Protestant colleges and universities, faculty began to think of themselves as professional scholars responsible not only to their college and church, but to a community of intellectual peers …[which led to the formation of various evangelical academic societies for those seeking] to balance standards of professional scholarship with the demands of faith….Through the 1950s and 1960s, however, many of the most talented evangelical scholars spent their careers at Christian colleges that did not encourage them to think of themselves as citizens of a broader intellectual community” (p. 111).

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Worthen on inerrancy and the evangelical crisis of authority

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/11/worthen-on-inerrancy-and-the-evangelical-crisis-of-authority/

 

by Peter Enns

November 5, 2013

Comments

 

The first part of Molly Worthen’s assessment of American evangelicalism (Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism) is a nearly 100-page section on inerrancy entitled “Knights Inerrant.”

 

As with any work of this type that tries to lay out an issue with some patience and detail, it is difficult to lift out some representa-tive quotes.

 

But I did it anyway.

 

Hopefully these will give you some taste for this portion of the book–though to assess the book itself, you have to read it (duh).

 

“[Second generation fundamentalists] aspired to the intellectual sophistication of old [19th century] Princeton, but it was not clear whether nuance was compatible with their sense of mission. Inerrantist intellectuals considered themselves something like Protestant Marines, a warrior corps whose confidence in the authority of scripture–and commitment to taking the principle of God’s sovereignty to its logical extreme–anointed them as the Bible’s first shock troops, favorite sons, and truest defenders” (24).

 

“From the neo-evangelical point of view, if Christian civilization was to survive the twentieth century, then biblical inerrancy and a reenergized Christian Weltanschauung [worldview] must form its bedrock…. [Despite Pietistic influence] a more rationalist, Reformed school of thought dominated their training. In this tradition, there was a single proof that one’s presuppositions were the right ones, and [the] one acceptable defense for any intellectual position: It was a true reading of the inerrant gospel” (35).

 

“In their call for engagement with the wider culture, for intellectual curiosity and rigor, the cadre of ex-fundamentalists at the center of the neo-evangelical movement tapped into a real sentiment simmering among Protestants. Yet for all the broadminded engagement that they encouraged in theory, their institutions waved the banner of biblical inerrancy without coming to terms with the controversy surrounding the doctrine” (53).

 

“[The neo-evangelical] ahistorical view of scripture, their overriding desire to defend the doctrine of inerrancy as ancient, immutable, and God-given, made sensitive scholarship impossible” (71).

 

“[P]resuppositionalists’ basic proposition, which they readily admitted–God is perfect and incapable of error in his revelation, and therefore no human may contradict that revelation–committed them [ironically] to a highly rationalistic view of the Bible. Since God could never err, any apparent discre-pancy between scripture and scientific knowledge revealed not a mistake in revelation or a rupture between faith and reason, but merely the error of human interpretation” (87).

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

evangelicalism and anti-intellectualism: blame the leaders

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/11/evangelicalism-and-anti-intellectualism-blame-the-leaders/

 

by Peter Enns

November 3, 2013

Comments

 

I received in the mail yesterday a copy of Molly Worthen’s Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism. Despite a very heavy football and coach-potato schedule this weekend, I am am nevertheless more than half done with it and I want to throw out a few quotes now and then–beginning today.

 

In her closing comments of the introduction, Worthen talks about “The Problem of Anti-Intellectualism” in evangelicalism (pp. 8-11). For her the matter is more complicated that a sweeping and simplistic accusation. Evangelical anti-intellectualism is part of the “larger narrative of Western intellectual history” (p. 7), which contains an uneasy marriage between Pietism (religion is a matter of the heart) and the Enlightenment (rebirth of reason and its many challenges to traditional thinking). She calls these two ideals evangelicalism’s “estranged parents” (p. 7; which implies, among other things, that evangelicalism’s existence is tied to the Enlightenment, even as it tries to keep its distance from it, a point some future quotes will draw out further).

 

So, concerning Evangelical anti-intellectualism, Worthen remarks,

 

The evolution of the evangelical community–and whether, and why, it might be called anti-intellectual–is best traced through the lives of the elites: the preachers, teachers, writers, and institution-builders in the business of creating and dissminating ideas. When critics describe evangelicalism as anti-intellectual, usually they are not blaming ordinary laypeople. A casual glance at the latest Amazon.com best-seller list, chock full of celebrity memoirs and pulpy novels, or the amateur talent shows and dating competitions that top the television rating, demonstrates that when it comes to intellectual shallowness evangelicals have no advantage on the rest of America.

 

When critics condemn the “evangelical mind,” they are talking about the people who ought to know better, who bear some responsibility for the Darwin-bashing and history-hashing that pollsters hear when they survey evangelical America. They are comparing evangelical elites with the nonevangelical intelligentsia. They are asking how it can be that college professors believe in creationism, or that educated activists deny evidence of global warming. They are wondering how evangelicals define the purpose of higher education (for which they have long shown great zeal) when they so regularly demean the fruits of critical inquiry, and how they can reconcile their fervor for evangelism with American pluralism. (pp. 9-10)

 

 

 

Peter Enns: "The Problem of Inerrancy for Evangelicalism"

Inerrancy, and the recent non-apocalyptic discussion, at the annual Evangelical Theological Society ETS) meeting in Baltimore

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/11/inerrancy-and-the-recent-non-apocalyptic-discussion-at-the-annual-evangelical-theological-society-meeting-in-baltimore/

 

by Peter Enns

November 21, 2013

Comments

 

I just got back from the session at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Baltimore on the the book I recently contributed to, Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. On the panel were co-authors Al Mohler, Michael Bird, John Franke, Kevin Vanhoozer (via video), and me.  The discussion was moderated by the editors of the book, James Merrick and Stephen Garrett.

 

As I entered the room I noticed two things. First, I had never met Al Mohler, but I was immediately taken by the fact that he and I are about the same height, so, if it came to it, I think I could take him.

 

Second, I didn’t notice a metal detector, though I had requested–in writing–that one be installed. Neither was my flak jacket neatly folded on my seat as a backup precaution. It turned out I didn’t need them any way.

 

The nuclear, apocalyptic, smack down, world-ending moment many were expecting and/or hoping for (let’s face it, why else would 2000+ people sit through 3 hours of this) didn’t happen. If anything was apocalyptic it was the $10 “sandwiches” the hotel provided for lunch and charging me $11.99 for 24-hours of internet access. What is this, Siberia?

 

Here’s how the session was laid out. We each began with a 15 minute presentation of our views. Next, for about 45 minutes we had the chance to press each other on matters, and I’d say there was a very healthy give and take among all present. If Vanhoozer had been there, this would have further expanded the conversation, but it was already hard enough sharing 2 microphones among the 4 of us. The Q&A session that followed, for about 45 minutes, was likewise fruitful.

 

My general take on the session is that all panelists were very clear in expressing what they thought. Some exchanges were pointed but not remotely aggressive or disrespectful.

 

My main regret is that it was only as the session was ending that I felt we were all getting to know each other well enough, so to speak, that things really could have taken off. I think each of us saw patterns of responses in each other that were only identified as the patterns kept recurring over the 3 hours.

 

We got below the surface of the rhetoric, but it would take more effort to get at the heart of things–which for me comes down to “what kind of God are we talking about here?” What we really needed now was for the panelists to find a pub, sit across from each other, and get down to business. “Panel discussions” are too much about posturing.

 

As a biblical scholar who deals with the messy parts of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), I came away with one recurring impression, a confirmation of my experience in these matters: mainstream American evangelicalism, as codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), doesn’t really know what to do with the Bible as a historical text.

 

Historical context is more a problem to be solved than a dimension of the Bible to be embraced–unless historical matters are idiosyncratically circumscribed, as they are in CSBI.

 

What summed up the issue, and the divide, for me at least was when one presenter pressed me by saying, “But the Bible is not merely human.” Indeed, but, it is still throughly human—right? A CSBI model of inerrancy gives lip service to the Bible’s historical particularity, but in practice keeps at a safe distance. In a way, this is a way to frame the entire discussion: what does it mean for a thoroughly human book to be more than human?

 

Welcome to the mystery of the incarnation.

 

That was a main theme of my 15 minute presentation. The title of my essay in the book is “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does.” Here are some of the main points I made.
 

• Neither strict nor progressive inerrancy (both of which are represented in the book) describe what I see when I open the Bible and read it. Both prescribe the boundaries of biblical interpretation in ways that create conflict both inner-canonically and with respect to extra-biblical information.

• My main misgiving is that inerrancy prescribes too narrowly biblical interpretation because it prescribes too narrowly God. All inerrantists, on some level, have the following a priori: an inerrant Bible is the only type of book God would produce. The tensions within evangelicalism over inerrancy are fueled by the distance between this a priori expectation about how God and the Bible “must” behave and the persistently non-cooperative details of biblical interpretation. This distance virtually guarantees continued conflict.

• CSBI promulgates these false expectations and is also seen as an authoritative document within American evangelical culture. One example is an early assertion that speaks of God “who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only.” This early assertion links inerrancy with the very nature of God, which is, to put it mildly, a conversation-stopper.

• What is missing here is hermeneutical self-consciousness, i.e., a reflection on the nature of truth that God speaks in ancient texts though ancient authors.

• To illustrate I referred to several of the passages in the Old Testament where Israel’s God Yahweh is referred to as one among a number of gods–e.g., Psalm 82, Psalm 95, Job 1-2 (Yahweh is chairman of a heavenly council of gods) Exodus 12:12 (Yahweh fights against others gods, here Egyptian gods), Deuteronomy 32:8 (where the high god Elyon assigns to Yahweh the people of Israel as his allotment–though English translations do not reflect this). My point here is how does an inerrant Bible, wherein God only speaks “truth,” fit with these descriptions of God? To restrict inerrancy to what the Bible explicitly “teaches or affirms,” as defenders of inerrancy typically do in these cases, does not help because these texts most certainly “affirm” something about God quite clearly.

• My point is that these descriptions of God are ones that the Israelites believed to be the case, at least at some point in their history. They do not give us final, absolute, inerrant information about God but contextually expressed beliefs about God. Serious historical study of the Bible has helped us to understand the ancient, tribal world where these texts were produced. The New Testament helps us see that we are to move beyond the tribal thinking that portrays God in these ways.

• To speak this way is not to dimiss the Old Testament nor is it Marcionism. Rather, we are grappling with “Bible in context” (the historical setting of the Bible) and the canonical complexity of the problem of continuity and discontinuity between the testaments (the gospel is clearly connected to Israel’s story while at the same time does new and unexpected things).

• An incarnational model of Scripture helps reorient our expectations of the Bible so that “history” ceases being such a huge doctrinal hurdle–we expect an ancient Bible to look ancient rather than protect the Bible from how it behaves.

• Inerrancy is not a concept that describes this complex dynamic, especially given the gate-keeping function inerrancy has performed in evangelicalism. Other language should be used.

On the last point, during the Q&A, I commented that my view of Scripture is that it carries a “narratival authority.” God uses the biblical story to form followers of Christ, not simply or even primarily rationally, but in their “whole being.” The biblical story has movement, shifts, changes–as does any story–and is used by God to shape us slowly and deeply in a life-long process of being conformed more and more to the crucified and risen Christ, not simply giving us discreet self-contained “truth claims.” The Bible itself bears witness to this journey of God’s people as they grow and reflect on God in various settings and situations, which is why there is such theological diversity in Scripture, and [thus,] systematizing Scripture under a CSBI model is out of place.

 

OK, that’s it for now. I may expand on some of this soon, especially since the book is now available.


 

Re-Envisage Your World !

SOFLES — LIMITLESS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv-Do30-P8A

Published on Nov 22, 2013

Instagram: @sofles @selinamiles @drapl @fintan_magee @butchdaddy @ironlak www.facebook.com/ironlak

Shot/Cut: Selina Miles.
Art by Sofles, Fintan Magee, Treas, Quench.
Soundtrack by DJ Butcher (track-listing below).

www.sofles.com
www.ironlak.com
www.selinamiles.com
www.facebook.com/fintanmageeart

DJ Butcher track-listing:
1. Get Busy Pt. 2;
2. Cocaine; featuring vocals from Stick Figure's 'Ring the Alarm'.
3. All in check.

The 'Limitless' EP is available for download for free via this link: http://goo.gl/IE0Lfg
https://soundcloud.com/djbutcherr
https://www.facebook.com/djbutcherr

Stick Figure:
http://www.stickfiguremusic.com/
https://www.facebook.com/stickfigurem...
Twitter @StickFigureDub
Instagram @StickFigureMusic
Buy the song 'Ring the Alarm' on iTunes
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/the...

Want more? Watch SOFLES — INFINITE: http://youtu.be/3cd7BpOR_ec

What We Believe about "Last Things"

White Poppy

I might refer the reader to Bruce Epperly's earlier articles (here and here) on "Kingdom Now Christianity" as the process-based version of seeing this holy life given to us by our gracious God as the one life that counts for the time that we now have. It is a vision of a life that becomes transformed by the grace of God through His atoning work on the cross of Christ Jesus our Lord. And in the transformation of the world in which we inhabit through the resurrection power of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is also the vision of an evangelic theology in its classical expression (as succinctly expressed by Michael Bird) but severely limited by a Christianity that would too easily condemn this world and give up on it - to await its death and destruction by God's future judgment (hence, Bird's emphasis on hell and Sheol). Which is in no sense the proper reading of the Apostle Paul as NT Wright has demonstrated time-and-again. What Paul argues for, and has ably demonstrated in Jesus' life, was the necessity of the believer to live transformed lives by the power and grace of our Redeemer/Creator God. To understand that in order for the Kingdom of God to come, it must come through our lips, hands, feet, minds, and hearts. To not abandon all so easily to hell but to uplift all to God's redeeming love and grace.

The essence of the Kingdom of God is that it is here, now. A Kingdom that lives in tension with this sinful world in which we live; but a good world when reconciled to its God, and committed to spiritual transformation in the grace and fellowship of the Lord Jesus Christ. A Kingdom that changes and grows as we change and grow as individuals and as a society. Which magisterial power is made all the more visible through our own transformed lives seeking benevolence and goodwill with all men everywhere, and with God's good earth that we live upon. Thus it can be said that the Kingdom of God is present now, and will grow fully to fruition based upon our commitment to live it, envision it, seek it, and share it.

And lastly, as a relational theologian - part process, part evangelic (and mostly post-evangelic) - I see God's heavenly Kingdom in both its tenses, both here - now, and here - later, to come. But don't let the word "heavenly" Kingdom mislead you... it is heavenly in that it is the epitome of what God wants, obedience to His will. But it is now become an "earthly Kingdom" inaugurated by the Incarnation, death, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ; who has established a New Covenant with God, and with mankind/creation, by His own transforming atonement. Hence, this Kingdom doth now lie in tension between the "here, and not yet. Between "what is, and could be. What is, and what will be." Sanctified, yea, covenanted, by God's great goodness and love in Christ Jesus, His Son. Who is God of very God. King of Kings. And Lord of Lords.

Thus, it is my expectation to see Jesus live-and-rule within the diadems of earth's history - not only as my Incarnate/crucified Lord, but as my risen King seated upon the earthly thrones over all mankind. And with this vision I likewise realize the deep solemnity portrayed in the acts-and-speech of God's holy bride, His church - its egresses and failures, as well as its heights and vision - when beheld fully within our Lord's grace works. Which fails in hope and will, pretending all is lost, upon a world commended by its Creator Redeemer to salvation. Renewal. Rebirth. Reclamation. Revival. Content to live upon the tatters of God's holy being, clothed in the rags of its own torn communities, rather than living powerfully transformed, repentant lives, redeeming the time still at hand. Whose charter of Kingdom fellowship must become more than it now displays to this world, should we permit the Holy Spirit of God to weave around us the holy threads of God's majestic love, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, hope, goodwill, and peace. "Even so dear Lord, Come. Let Thy Holy Will be done. On this earth, as it is in Heaven."

R.E. Slater

November 27, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

What We Believe about “Last Things”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/11/27/what-we-believe-about-last-things/

by Scot McKnight

Nov 27, 2013

Comments

Christians have distinct views of the “last things” — in fact, their view of the “last” things (or eschatology) is that the last things have already begun. This is called “inaugurated” eschatology. But there are bundle of topics in what Christians believe about eschatology and evangelicals have (they really do) even more to believe (than many Christians). Here are the topics, all discussed briefly by Michael Bird in his Evangelical Theology:

1. Gospel and kingdom: here he affirms George Ladd’s definition of kingdom. Though Bird will finesse church and kingdom when he gets to church, I think kingdom is the place to raise that discussion because it forces ecclesiology in its proper place. And because he ties the two together, and does not separate them as many do in the Reformed and Lutheran and dispensational frameworks, this is the place to raise it first. This one deserves more than I can put here but Israel and kingdom and church come into play, too. The big picture is that he sees kingdom as the overlap of the ages …

… even more, for him kingdom is mostly reduced to the dynamic of the redemptive rule of God in this world, and he sees breaking-in moments of the kingdom if redemptive actions. This leads toward a more Kuyperian (not so Richard Niebuhrian) theory for the relationship of church and state. It also leads him to believe he has a gospelized perception of kingdom and eschatology.

2. The return of Christ and the rapture, and here Bird’s view is “historic premillennialism” (vs. dispensationalism), so once again he is with Ladd. Here Bird has a slight preterist view in what Jesus was talking — 70AD stuff in Mark 13. I’d like to see him address 1 Thess 4–5 more on this topic. He’s post-trib and not pre-trib.

3. Final judgment: he affirms NT Wright’s view of heaven as new heavens and new earth, a more or less city with Eden-like features (the end is the beginning, the beginning is the end), but he also affirms a traditional view of hell.

4. The intermediate state: he’s got a chart that maps it all out (323). Prior to Christ’s ascension, all who died entered the realm of the dead (sheol) that had two parts: one for wicked, one for righteous. At the ascension, Christ took with him the righteous of Sheol while the wicked remained; at death believers go to be with Jesus in heaven ahead of the resurrection. Sheol will be emptied into hell.

5. The Final state: Here, the old heavens and earth pass away, and the new heaven and earth begins under the reign of the resurrected Jesus as Lord and King.
 

Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon, Michigan