Peter Enns - "How Jesus Read His Bible," by Michael Hardin (Parts 1-4) + Videos: A Non-Violent Atonement

How Jesus Read His Bible

(Michael Hardin part 1)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/how-jesus-read-his-bible-michael-hardin-part-1/

by Peter Enns

April 8, 2014

Comments

Today begins a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA, whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” An internationally known speaker, he is one of the earliest members of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion and is a co-founder Theology and Peace, also based in the United States. Michael was educated at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago and is a PhD candidate at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia.

Hardin is the author of the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life and What The Facebook?: Posts from the Edge of Christendom, and co-editor of Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ, Peace Be with You: Christ’s Benediction amid Violent Empires, Compassionate Eschatology, and editor of the forthcoming book Reading the Bible with Rene Girard.

His current book project is Lamb Up!: The Resurrection Gospel. He has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality and practical theology. 

Michael participated in the recent documentary Hellbound? and is working with director Kevin Miller on a television project on the work of René Girard.

These posts are adapted by Hardin from The Jesus Driven Life.

- Peter Enns

---

We have learned from modern theologians that what one says about Scripture and how one uses it can be two different things and that how one uses Scripture is the real indication of what one believes about it.

I notice, for example, that many preachers use Scripture as a diving board, they quote it and then jump off into a pool of ideas, leaving the biblical text behind. What they say might be good or true or even relevant but it has little or no connection to the passage under discussion.

Other preachers I have heard treat Scripture like they are in a 7th grade science class dissecting a frog. They notice with some repugnance the things they don’t like and can be quite critical of the process of having to figure out what lies before them.

Some have a "high" view of Scripture by which they mean Scripture is the Word of God, inspired and without error, yet the way in which they use it betrays that they really don’t take it very seriously. These folks ignore context and, "a text without a context is a pretext" or as my Australian friend Jarrod McKenna says “a text without a context is a con.”

These folks have what I call the Old McDonald approach to the Bible, here a verse, there a verse, everywhere a verse verse. Contemporary fundamentalist preaching is like this; a string of verses on a chain like pearls that all make whatever point the preacher is seeking to get across.

That makes the Bible flat and you can do all kinds of strange things with a flat Bible. It’s like silly putty. A flat reading of the Bible is like a 2D grainy black and white silent film compared to reading the Bible on a Hi-Def BIG HDTV screen with Blu-Ray color and Bose Surround Sound in 4D. Now what would you rather have? A thin schemer of old butter on cold toast or a rich robust Feast?

There is a way to read the Bible that is life-giving, thoughtful and joyous. How Scripture is deployed says a lot more than what is believed about it. Believing something to be true about the Bible does not make it true no matter how many have shouted it.

What counts, ultimately, is the way the Bible is rendered in your life, that is, how your life is the living interpretation of the Bible.

Protestants frequently argue that because Jesus quoted the Jewish Bible, this means that he accepted its authority as a whole. When they do this they import a modern view of the authority of Scripture or canon back into the past.

The fact is that there were many and varied views of the authority of the biblical writings and not all groups in Jesus’ time had the same view of biblical authority. It is also true that the way the New Testament writers and Jesus quote and interpret Scripture follows certain patterns in their culture.

Groups in Jesus’ day had rules or guidelines for interpreting the biblical text. The key question for us and one that is rarely raised is this: Did Jesus have a way of using his Bible that was different from those around him? I suggest that he did.

The key text for us to explore in this section will come from Jesus’ inaugural sermon at his hometown synagogue in Nazareth found in the Gospel of Luke (4:16-30).

To be fair, many critical scholars see the hand of the Gospel editor all over this text, noting that many phrases are typical of Luke. Nevertheless, I suspect that there is an authentic story underlying this text inasmuch as Jesus’ first sermon almost gets him killed.

There is also a tremendous congruity with how Jesus interprets the Scripture in this text and his way of understanding both theology and ethics that we find in his teaching, e.g., in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6).

In Luke 4 Jesus returns to his hometown in Nazareth after having been baptized and then tested in the wilderness. He enters the synagogue and is asked to be the Scripture reader.

In Jesus’ day this could have taken two forms, the first is the actual reader (a vocalizer) of the Hebrew text that would not have been understood by Galileans. It would be like someone reading from the Greek New Testament in church today.

The second role would be that of a translator/interpreter known as a targumist. This person would not read from a scroll but recite from memory a ‘standard’ translation (a Targum) in Aramaic that was the common Semitic tongue in Palestine. Luke appears unclear as to which role Jesus took, perhaps conflating both roles into one. Nevertheless in Luke, Jesus arises takes the scroll and reads from Isaiah:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to

release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

After this he rolls the scroll up, hands it over to the attendant, who puts it away and then Jesus sits down.

The sermon was short and sweet. He further says,

“Today this text has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Now what follows is strange for at first it appears that the listeners are quite glad for what Jesus said. But he retorts rather sarcastically and then proceeds to cite two examples (Elijah and Elisha) to justify his sarcasm. It is at this point that the crowd wants to take him out and kill him by throwing him off a cliff.

This really doesn’t make much sense. Some interpreters might argue that what got Jesus in trouble was some sort of ‘divine’ claim, that God had anointed him to be special. But is such the case?

In my next post, in order to see what is happening here in Luke 4, we shall note three critical but interrelated aspects of this episode. First, we will note the way Jesus cites the book of Isaiah compared to what is actually in Isaiah. Second, we will look at the translation problem of verse 22. Third we will look at why Jesus uses these specific examples from Elijah and Elisha to make his point.

- Michael Hardin

* * * * * * * * * *

Are you irked at the thought of God not being wrathful?

(Michael Hardin part 2)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/are-you-irked-at-the-thought-of-god-not-being-wrathful-michael-hardin-part-2/

by Peter Enns

April 9, 2014

Comments

Today we have part 2 of a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin (see full bio at part 1) is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” Hardin has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality, and practical theology. He is also the author of several books, including the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life from which these posts are adapted.

In today’s post, Hardin continues his discussion of Luke 4 and and how Jesus’s use of Isaiah 61:1-2 reframes our understanding of “wrath” and the retributive violence of God.

- Peter Enns

---

When teaching Luke 4, I point out that Isaiah 61:1-2 was one of the more popular passages in Judaism. It is cited in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other writings as well as in rabbinic literature. Have you ever seen a football game where after a touchdown somebody holds up a sign in the end zone seats that reads “John 3:16?” If they had played football in Jesus’ day that sign would have read “Isaiah 61:1-2.”

What made it so important was that it was a lectionary passage for the Year of Jubilee. This was a text that expressed the hope of Israel for liberation from the bondage not only of spiritual disease but also political and economic oppression. The vision of Isaiah was one of shalom, wholeness in all of life.

The first thing to notice is that Jesus does not cite the entire text but eliminates one very important line, “and the day of the vengeance of our God.” The question is: why did he do this?

Some suggest that now is the time of grace and so Jesus holds off on quoting the text about God’s vengeance since that will come later at the end of time. But nowhere else does Jesus seem to quote the biblical text in this fashion, and he never seems to break the work of God into dispensations or periods of time. [Therefore,] something else is going on here.

Second is the problem of translation that arises in Luke 4:22. Most translations indicate that the crowd was pleased with Jesus. These same synagogue hearers then comment, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?”

Jesus reading Luke 4

The intonation we are supposed to supply would be something like “Oh, what a fine sermon and what a fine preacher Jesus has turned out to be, his father would be so proud!” But is this the case?

The Greek text is quite simple and the King James has adequately translated this “and all bore witness to him.” This bearing witness in the KJV is neither positive nor negative. Why then do translators say, “all spoke well of him?”

Translators have to make what is known as a syntactical decision, they have to decide whether or not the “bearing witness” is negative or positive. Technically speaking they have to decide if the dative pronoun “to him” is a dative of disadvantage or a dative of advantage; was the crowd bearing witness to his advantage or to his disadvantage?

If it is the former case then the intonation we gave to “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” above would make sense and Jesus immediately following gets sarcastic for no reason, but if it is the latter then we could just as well translate this text as “and all spoke ill of his sermon,” that is, they didn’t like what he said.

Then the intonation of the phrase “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” should be rendered something like “who does Jesus think he is coming into our synagogue and saying such things?” With this alternate, preferable translation, of verse 23, Jesus is not being sarcastic but is responding to the negativity of the listeners.

A third point to be made concerns the two examples Jesus cites from two of Israel’s greatest prophets, Elijah and Elisha. In both cases Jesus notes that God worked not within the bounds of Israel but outside the chosen people when he sent these prophets to feed and heal.

What is the connection between what these prophets did and what Jesus said when he quoted the Isaiah text, and why did the crowd get angry enough with him to want to kill him?

We noted that when Jesus quoted the Isaiah text he did not quote the phrase “and the day of the vengeance of our God.” If, in popular opinion, part of the promise of jubilee was that God would deliver Israel from her oppressors, and if that expectation was that God would punish her oppressors, then the phrase “and the day of the vengeance of our God” would be an aspect of the longed for and hoped for deliverance by which Israel’s enemies would be cast down.

Political deliverance was perceived as an aspect of God working wrath on Israel’s enemies. By eliminating this line, Jesus also eliminated the possibility that jubilee included God’s wrath upon whoever was oppressing Israel. His words were indeed “gracious words” (“words of grace”).

The citation of the two examples of Elijah and Elisha then justify Jesus’ exclusion of this vengeance saying, for both prophets had worked their healing miracles among foreign outsiders, those whom God was supposed (in popular piety) to hate.

In short, Jesus is saying to his synagogue hearers:

Jubilee is here, not only for you but also for those you hate; in fact God also goes to your oppressors with this message of jubilee, deliverance and salvation. God will become their God and thus you shall all be family.

Now we can begin to understand why they got so mad at him.

But there is a further implication to be drawn from this. By eliminating the phrase regarding God’s vengeance, Jesus is removing the notion of retributive violence from the doctrine of God.

Noah's Flood

He is in effect saying that God is not like you think, loving you and angry with those you hate. There is a great bumper sticker making the rounds these days that captures this problem. It says “Isn’t it convenient that God hates the same people you do?”

Like the Galileans, we too have a tendency to want to believe that God is on our side and will judge “the other” who is over against us, or different from us. Such was not the case with Jesus. He observed that God makes no distinctions between righteous and wicked, between oppressors and oppressed, they both need deliverance and God’s blessing. Did he not say, “God makes rain to fall on good and evil and sun to shine on just and unjust?” (Matt 5:45)

This is perhaps the most important point I am seeking to make in my book The Jesus Driven Life, namely that, like Jesus, it is essential for us to begin to reframe the way we understand the “wrath” or retributive violence of God.

To suggest that God is nonviolent or better yet, that God is not involved in the cycle of retributive vengeance and punishment will undoubtedly strike many as wrong. Some having read this far are no doubt ready to run me out of town. If you are feeling this way, then what is the difference between how you feel and how Jesus’ hearers felt that day when he preached in his hometown synagogue?

Nothing irks some folks more than losing a God who is wrathful, angry, retributive and punishing. This is only because we want so much to believe that God takes sides, and that side is inevitably our side.

- Michael Hardin

* * * * * * * * * *

What does a God without retribution look like?

- Ask Jesus!

(Michael Hardin part 3)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/what-does-god-without-retribution-look-like-ask-jesus-michael-hardin-part-3/

by Peter Enns

April 10, 2014

Comments

Today we have part 3 of a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin (see full bio at part 1) is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” Hardin has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality, and practical theology. He is also the author of several books, including the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life from which these posts are adapted.

In today’s post, Hardin continues his discussion of Jesus’s use of the Old Testament. Hardin argues that the manner in which Jesus quotes his scripture shows us the God Jesus proclaims is not retributive. And, as you’ll see, John the Baptist was confused about this (as you might be).

- Peter Enns

---

We ended the last post by saying,

Nothing irks some folks more than losing a God who is wrathful, angry, retributive

and punishing. This is only because we want so much to believe that God takes

sides, and that side is inevitably our side.

So much of Jesus’s teaching subverts this sacrificial way of thinking.

One example is the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector found in Luke 18:9-14, where what counts as righteousness is completely and totally turned on its head!

If, in fact, as I argued in my last post, that Jesus begins his ministry by asking what God without retribution looks like (Luke 4), and if he acts this way in his ministry, and if he interprets his Bible to say such things, the question arises:

• Shouldn’t we also follow Jesus in interpreting our Bibles in the same way?
• Is biblical interpretation also a part of discipleship?
• Does following Jesus include more than just living a virtuous life?
• Might it also have to do with helping folks change the way they envision God?

Such was the case for Jesus who called people constantly to “change your thinking.” This is what repentance is, changing the way you think about things (Greek metanoia). When we change the way we see and understand the character of God, everything else changes and we turn back (Hebrew shuv) to the living and true God.

John the Baptist

We can see Jesus doing the same thing in Luke 7:18-23 when he responds to the followers of John the Baptist. Herod had imprisoned the Baptist for his preaching against the Herodian family system. John did not want to die without knowing whether Jesus was the one to come.

Now what could possibly have created this doubt in John’s mind? The answer comes in Jesus’ response to John’s followers. “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard,” Jesus says and then follows a list of miracles. Is Jesus saying, “Tell John you have seen a miracle worker and that God is doing great things through me?”

Doesn’t John already know these things about Jesus? Surely he does. Healers were rare but they were not uncommon in Jesus’ day. What then is Jesus really saying?

Luke 7:22ff is a selection of texts, mostly from Isaiah but also including the miracles of Elijah and Elisha (blind, Isaiah 61:1-2, 29:18, 35:5; lame, 35:6; deaf, 29:18, 35:5; poor 29:19; dead/lepers, I Kings 17:17-24 and 2 Kings 5:1-27).

The Isaiah texts all include a consequent or subsequent reference to the vengeance of God none of which Jesus quotes. As in Luke 4 what is at stake is the retributive violence of God that was an important aspect of John’s proclamation (Luke 3:7-9).

John, like the prophets before him, believed that God was going to bring an apocalyptic wrath. Nowhere in Jesus’ preaching do we find such and this is what confused John, just as it confused Jesus’ synagogue hearers.

Janus

Jesus implicitly tells John, through his message to John’s followers, that the wrath of God is not part of his message, rather healing and good news is. That is, Jesus is inviting John to read Isaiah the way he did!

The last thing Jesus tells John the Baptists’ disciples is “Blessed is the person who is not scandalized on account of me?” What could have caused this scandal? What had Jesus said and done that would cause people to stumble on his message? The clues are here in both Luke 4 and 7.

Jesus did not include as part of his message the idea that God would pour out wrath on Israel’s enemies in order to deliver Israel. Violence is not part of the divine economy for Jesus.

Sad to say, most Christians still think more like John the Baptist than Jesus.

Christians have lived a long time with a God who is retributive.

• We say that God is perfect and thus has the right to punish those whom he deems fit.
• We say that God will bring his righteous wrath upon all those who reject God.
• We say that God can do what God wants because God is God.

All of this logic is foreign to the gospel teaching of Jesus about the character of his heavenly abba.

Jesus does not begin with an abstract notion of God or Platonic metaphysics, but with the Creator God whom he knows as loving, nurturing and caring for all persons regardless of their moral condition, their politics, their ethnic background or their social or economic status. God cares for everyone equally and alike.

By removing retribution from the work and character of God, Jesus, for the first time in human history, opened up a new way, a path, which he also invites us to travel.

Sadly few have found that this path and church history is replete with hundreds, even thousands of examples of a Janus-faced god, a god who is merciful and wrathful, loving and punishing. Some have said that we need to hold to both of these sides together.

Jesus didn’t and neither should we. It is time for us to follow Jesus in reconsidering what divinity without retribution looks like.

- Michael Hardin

* * * * * * * * * *

“Scripture is like a cracked jar” -

the glory of an imperfect Bible

(Michael Hardin part 4)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/scripture-is-like-a-cracked-jar-the-glory-of-an-imperfect-bible-michael-hardin-part-4/

by Peter Enns

April 11, 2014

Comments

Today we come to the final post of a 4-part series by Michael Hardin, “How Jesus Read His Bible.” Hardin (see full bio at part 1) is the co-founder and Executive Director of Preaching Peace a non-profit based in Lancaster, PA whose motto is “Educating the Church in Jesus’ Vision of Peace.” Hardin has published over a dozen articles on the mimetic theory of René Girard in addition to essays on theology, spirituality, and practical theology. He is also the author of several books, including the acclaimed The Jesus Driven Life from which these posts are adapted.

In today’s post, Hardin talks about how he sees God speaking through Scripture: through the cross.

- Peter Enns

---

If God speaks through Scripture, and I believe God does indeed speak, how shall we understand God speaking? I begin with several criteria.

1 - The first is that in Jesus the “fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily” (Col 2:9). Jesus is the figure who reveals the character of the Father (so Heb 1:1-3, John 1:1- 18, etc).

2 - The second is this: God speaks through broken vessels. The greatest speech/act of God can be found in the cross. God did God’s best work on the cross reconciling a stubborn, blind and rebellious humanity by forgiving them their sins.

The cross is the ultimate place of God’s brokenness. It is in this brokenness that we see most clearly the affection of God for humanity, an affection or love that takes even misjudgment, torture, humiliation and shame and still announces forgiveness.

Paul in 2 Corinthians 4 says we have “this treasure in clay jars.” This treasure is the gospel (vs. 3). If a jar could contain light, say, the light of the gospel, and it was perfect, then that light would not be seen, for it would have nowhere to shine through. If it is cracked, then there are places for that light to leak out and shine forth.

For me, Scripture is liked a cracked jar, it is because it is cracked that light is able to shine forth. If in our brokenness God shines God’s light in and through us, can we not also assert the same of the prophets and the apostles? Can we not say that we are most like God, not when we are whole, but when we are broken? Does not the Fourth Gospel (John) suggest as much in its view of the relationship between ‘glory’ (doxa) and the cross?

In other words, we do not need to have a theory of Scripture where the Bible must be perfect in order for God to reveal God’s self.

Some may object and say but if that is the case how do we distinguish between what is “man’s [sic] word” and what is “God’s Word?” This has already been answered by suggesting that revelation comes through the voice of the forgiving victim.

It is the Crucified that speaks the eternal word: shalom. The forgiveness announced by Jesus on the cross is no different than the ‘shalom’ announced by the Risen Jesus. They are flip sides of a coin. God is at peace with humanity.

For this reason, I see the cross as the evacuation of all concepts of divine wrath, existential and eschatological. There was no wrath of God poured out on Jesus on the cross; the wrath is strictly ours. Nor is there an eschatological wrath, as though God was only partly ameliorated at the cross but will make sure to vent holy anger come The End.

The cross is the death of all our god concepts, and we humans are the ones who, through the justification of scapegoating, believe that God is one with us when we victimize. After all, ‘God’ victimized plenty of people and people groups in the Old Testament.

This sacrificial way of thinking is terminated by the anti-sacrifice Jesus. Jesus’ blood covers our sin, not through some divine forensic transaction but as we lift our blood stained hands we hear the divine voice, “You are forgiven, each and every one of you, all of you.”

The New Testament writers say this was all done “for us” (hyper humon), for our sakes, for our benefit. This is what the Nicene Creed affirms when it says Jesus “who for us humans and our salvation came down from heaven.” Just as Hebrews 10:5-8 says, this coming was not to be a sacrifice but was the opposite, it was anti-sacrificial.

Jesus did not come to fulfill the logic of the sacrificial system (either Jewish or pagan) but to expose it and put an end to its reign in our lives.

The cross of Christ is the place of revelation, the resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of that revelation, and the ascension, where Jesus is given the Unpronounceable Name (Phil 2:5-11) is the place where that revelation is confirmed for all time.

This is the good news, this is the gospel, and this is why we trust God to use our brokenness to shine his light from our lives into the lives of others, just as God uses the broken prophetic and apostolic witness to continue to shine light to us and for us today.

How can we break through to this new reading of the Bible? What is it that hinders us from really seeing and hearing and experiencing the good news? What keeps us in bondage to our old sacrificial ways of thinking?

It is time to name the interpretive prison system in which Christianity finds herself. We must discern how the ‘satanic’ sacrificial interpretation manifests itself in our theology. Just as a prison has guards or warders so also sacrificial Christianity has warders that keep it bound to the false logic of sacrifice.

It is the revelation of the resurrected victim that creates the possibility, hitherto an impossibility, for reading texts outside the box of our anthropological mythmaking and justification of reciprocal vengeance.

Christopher Marshall also points to this way of understanding our changed relationship to God:

God’s perceived involvement in the infliction of violence is over. God no longer fights fire with fire. God has changed – or, perhaps more accurately, the human experience of God’s association with violence has changed. God no longer permits his identity to be defined by violence; God actively repudiates the violent behavior which has hitherto clouded his character so that the duplicity of violence itself may be exposed and defeated. (“The Violence of God and the Hermeneutics of Paul” in The Work of Jesus Christ in Anabaptist Perspective [Telford: Cascadia Publishing, 2008], 89.)

I suggest a correlation of hermeneutics with resurrection and discipleship as the three legs of a new paradigm of biblical authority. This anthropological reading of the text is a formative new paradigm for framing the specifics of how the Bible is to be read, understood and lived within the Christian communion.

It is a liberating paradigm for it moves beyond the contentious debates regarding the relation of truth to language and brings to the fore the key problem that has bogged down the church since Marcion on the relation of violence to divinity.

The lens of the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus reveals our total sin and God’s total grace. It is a paradigm that calls for more than just intellectual assent; indeed it requires the risk of obedience to Jesus so that, just as he is the Light of the World, so we too, in listening to him and following him, may be light to our world.

- Michael Hardin

Kevin Miller and Michael Hardin - How Jesus Read the Bible?

(Gateway Alliance Church 29.09.2013)

* * * * * * * * *

Michael Hardin on the Bible & Atonement

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2014/04/14/michael-hardin-bible-atonement/

April 14, 2014 by Bo Sanders Comments

Michael Hardin is the author of several books among others [you can find here]:

Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ

Compassionate Eschatology: The Future as Friend

The Jesus Driven Life: Reconnecting Humanity With Jesus

He is the Executive Director of Preaching Peace, an organization co-founded with his wife Lorri. You can see all that they are up to at www.preachingpeace.org

“Our hope is to see the church re-examine its theology in the light of the good news of Jesus who proclaimed a truly distinct and unique vision of God. When we do so we encounter a God of radical free grace, forgiveness and love and our lives are transformed by the Spirit of God sent to us through Jesus.”

HomeBrewed Interview & Audio Link Here

* * * * * * * * *

YouTube Vids

Michael Hardin: A Nonviolent Atonement

Published on Dec 11, 2013

Michael Hardin and Non-Violent Atonement (Nomad Podcast - 10 December 2013)

Tim and Dave (from Nomad Podcast) are chatting with theologian Michael Hardin, founder of Preaching Peace and author of 'The Jesus Driven Life'. The boys ask him whether God is really as violent as the Old Testament makes out, and whether he really had to kill his own son in order to forgive us.

Source: Nomad Podcast http://www.nomad.libsyn.com

The Millennial Church and its Postmodern Gospel Message for Renewing Orthodoxy

From the outset of writing Relevancy22 it was felt that the contemporary church's definition of Christian orthodoxy had become too narrowly restricted and filled with its own conservative political and social platforms that were definitely un-orthodox and not the Jesus way of thinking. Apparently I am not alone as many of today's millennial generation are similarly convicted that Jesus' ministry was to all men and women - especially to the outcast, the unempowered, and despised. That He necessarily involved Himself in the affairs of human justice and equality. And that He did not hold back His retribution towards any religious ideologies that would diminish God's love and justice with one's own ideas of rightness and equality.

Hence, over the past three years of Relevancy22's blogging we have been developing a postmodern, post-evangelical reference site that has been actively revisiting every church dogma and doctrine so as to purposely reset historic Christian orthodoxy apart from its more conservative evangelic interpretation of those same doctrines. I say "evangelic" because any doctrine or dogma that speaks Jesus as the heart-and-soul of Christianity is both orthodox and evangelical as broadly defined. But conservative, or liberal, party politics or religious identification is another matter - one speaks law and legalism whereas the other speaks universalism and libertinism.

However, any church movement - even an evangelic church movement - can be compromised by good intentions and over reaction to the events of one's contemporary times and eras. But a wise man or woman will look back on their life and say, "Hey, this isn't about Jesus anymore, but about my wants and needs that have diminished my Lord and Savior's gospel to humanity." At which point those convicted servants of the Lord must stand up and speak God's name back into the ranks and files of His people until they understand how well-meaning religious intentions have co-opted the gospel of Christ.

And so, today's latest articles are seeing the same things while speaking to the church's need to not confuse the historic definition of Christian orthodoxy with its own contemporary ideas of what it thinks the gospel of Jesus is-or-is-not. That contemporary orthodox Christianity must always carry with it the burden of speaking Jesus' gospel in relevant biblical terms without compromising the intent of God's Word, grace, and salvation. That true Christian orthodoxy is not to be conscripted towards conservative - or liberal - political and social agendas. More rather that orthodox traditions of the Christian church must always be forward looking as much as backwards looking. That it can neither so be old-timey conservative as to be despised and distrusted, or so progressively liberal as to become a meaningless religious book club. That the name of "Christian" means something. That being "a follower of Jesus" carries with it social ramifications. And that the onus is placed upon the church to wrestle with the difference between God's grace and truth and its own liberality, conventions, and social mores.

So then, the church must speak in the language of its generation - which in this case is postmodernism. And to know the difference of when to let go with the church's past conventions - which in this case would be its secular modernism. And most importantly, to allow all these religious drivers to reset a progressive tone of liberality towards God's creation - both in terms of caring for mankind as well as for this good earth (see the ecology sections on this site's sidebar, or begin here: Aldo Leopold - Caring for this Good Earth). In this way is orthodox Christianity in time-and-keeping with its antecedent past much as we as people must continually re-evaluate ourselves in order to stay in step with our kids, our families, our schools, and our societies. We can ill-afford to be careless with either by always listening, observing, discussing, questioning, debating, and absorbing. This is the charge of God to His good servants wishing to do His will on this earth even as it is  done in heaven.

We can ill afford to speak Jesus' name in less submissive tones than those which are spoken by the Spirit of God as He works the Father's will. Consequently, we test all things - including church doctrines and dogma, its traditions and folklores - that all our ways and thoughts and ministries may be as expansive as the love of God. And as truthful as His love would direct us into His longsuffering care and humility. Without shading its meaning towards our own private interpretations of the Scripture or preferences of gospel ministry. God's love is larger and more forgiving than we think. And it can, and will, make fools of us all if we do not remember His grace and mercy in all things, including the very church organs and edifices of His sheep-like people that have become stone walls to His goodness, forgiveness, hope, and healing, denying His power to all. May this not be. Peace.

R.E. Slater

April 11, 2014

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

6 Reasons Millennial Christians Will Change Everything 

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/god-our-generation/6-reasons-millennial-christians-will-change-everything

despite millennials' social mistrust, bleak financial situations, and all the other

mind-numbingly depressing data... millennials tend to pretty upbeat about the future

by Tyler Francke 

April 9, 2014

Tyler Francke is a print journalist and freelance writer in the Pacific Northwest. He is the founder and lead contributor of the blog God of Evolution and author of the forthcoming novel Reoriented. Follow him on Twitter @tylerjfrancke.

---

The circumstances may look bleak, but here's why you can be upbeat about this generation.

A recent and widely discussed study by the Pew Research Center has given researchers new insights into the Millennial generation, greatly expanding a knowledge base that appeared to previously consist of little more than “They sure seem to like Starbucks” and “They refuse to move out of my basement.”

While some of the study’s revelations were not exactly groundbreaking (they have tons of debt—who knew?), others raised eyebrows, like their tendency to shun institutions, including religious ones, at rates far surpassing their parents and grandparents.

The bottom line is that, in many ways, Millennials are very different than the generation that preceded them, and some folks might be a little nervous about that. But we can lay those concerns to rest, because, as Christians, there is a lot to be excited about in the generation that’s poised to inherit the future.

1. They’re Poised for Revival.

Studies have shown that Millennials are much less religious than previous generations. Could this really be a good thing? Absolutely. First of all, while it’s true that roughly three in 10 Millennials (29%) claim no religious affiliation, 86% still profess belief in God, which doesn’t really sound like an atheists’ society.

What’s more exciting is that the arc of history bends toward spiritual renewal. Many of our country’s greatest revivals—from the Second Great Awakening to the hippie-era “Jesus movement”—were immediately preceded by periods of increased apostasy and reduced church attendance. So, be alarmist if you must, but don’t be surprised if Millennials wind up embracing pure, unadulterated faith at rates that put their predecessors to shame.

2. They’re More Individualistic.

According to New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, individualism is the one denominator underlying all of Millennial's generational trends. It’s why they’re optimistic about their personal futures but distrust society as a whole; why they’re fleeing congregations Exodus-style while still maintaining private beliefs in high numbers; why they’re addicted to selfies and sharing their latest exploits on Facebook.

And individualism can be a great virtue, even in a Christian context. Because though Scripture describes the Church in corporate terms—as “a body”—the metaphor collapses without some individualism. A homogenous mixture of identical material is not a body, it’s a gelatinous blob. A body has many different parts, fulfilling many different roles.

Millennials are a unique generation, the most diverse this country has ever seen. And if the Church God has in mind is not a blank wall, but a glorious, messy mosaic of color and awesomeness, then they may just fit the bill quite nicely.

To reach one’s audience with the truth of the Gospel or any other message, you have to speak their language. In 2014 and beyond, the language of our culture is increasingly becoming digitized.

3. They Speak Tech.

Pew describes Millennials as “digital natives”—the first generation that has not had to adapt to new technology and the Internet. Like Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, they were “born in it, molded by it.” This is their turf, and they are oh so ready to reclaim it.

When Jesus became man, He was very much a man of His day. He didn’t just speak the language, He knew what to talk about, sharing simple stories couched in the terms of instantly relatable, everyday experiences.

And Millennials are fluent.

4. They Question Everything.

You hear Millennials being called the “Why?” generation, and it's hard to deny that the nickname fits pretty snugly. It also reflects their tendency to be wary of institutions, political parties and even other people in general (less than 20% of Millennials agreed with the statement that “most people can be trusted”).

Such radical skepticism may seem distasteful or inherently combative, until you remember the high premium Scripture places on shrewdness and "testing everything". In that light, their eagerness to dissect the issues themselves (and maybe squish around in the guts a bit until they get to the heart of the matter, and see if they like how it beats) appears a lot less negative.

In fact, you could argue that Millennials' comfort with re-examining long-held traditions—and, sometimes, jettisoning them without hesitation—is one of their most Christ-like qualities. After all, Jesus torpedoed the conventions of his religious contemporaries by the boatload, once illustrating the point by saying that you can’t pour new wine into old wineskins.

With Millennials, that won't be much of an issue. Pour away.

5. They Don’t Toe the Party Line.

At first glance, it may be tempting to read the Pew study and conclude that the Millennial generation is bent wildly to the left. Actually, half of Millennials identify as independents, but they do tend to be pretty blue on most issues.

Honestly, I don’t think this is because young Evangelicals are simply becoming more liberalized. What’s happening is they’re going back to the words of Jesus, and realizing He didn’t say a lot about exact political stances, but He did seem to harp on things like loving others and serving the poor.

So they’re breaking rank from the polarizing two-party system and trying to find a third way instead.

6. They are Relentless Optimists.

Interestingly, despite Millennials' social mistrust, bleak financial situations and all the other mind-numbingly depressing data that apparently characterize their existence, Millennials tend to pretty upbeat about the future—both their own and that of the country as a whole. While only 32% said they’re now earning as much as they need (far lower than the other generations), 53% said they will earn enough to meet their financial needs in the future (which is far higher).

You can chalk this all up to wishful thinking if you want to, but here’s what I think: Optimists and pessimists look at the same world, and both see exactly what they want and expect to. And they help bring about the same.

God can use anyone, but it’s harder for those who don’t believe things can get any better to open their hearts' to God's leading. Things will get better, and I’m going to do everything I can to make sure they do, in whatever small way I can.

And I know my fellow Millennials will, too.

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

How Christian Orthodoxy must separate itself from
the Evangelical culture of conservative politics

How Conservative Evangelicals Misunderstand Millennials

April 5, 2014

"What millennials are calling for is for the old guard of Evangelicalism to return to orthodoxy and to stop putting their political and social positions on top of their definition orthodoxy and then using them as a measuring rod to determine who is in and who is out. We are calling leaders of Evangelicalism to repent of making Jesus in their own image by imposing on the Christ of the Scriptures social and political ideas that were completely foreign to him. And most of all, we’re calling the leaders of Evangelicalism to stop demonizing the next generation who is doing our best to worship, obey, and follow Jesus Christ in a cultural context that they know little about.

There are unique challenges that face the way millennials live out our faith in this ever-expanding new world that require us to rethink and reform what it looks like to be Christian. All of us truly desire to see our world transformed by the Gospel of Jesus and the way that is going to look for us will be radically different then the way it looked for them.

"At the end of the day, I think the unfortunate reality is that many in the old-guard of Evangelicalism are going to continue to refuse to hear out the millennial Evangelicals and continue to perpetuate the myth that we’re just trying to rid ourselves of orthodox theology and embrace hipster, social justicey, teddy bear forms of Jesus.

But this opposition should not stop us from pursuing Jesus with our whole lives. I no longer fear being called a “heretic” by more conservative Evangelicals, because I am confident that as long as I am pursuing Jesus as he has been revealed in the Gospels, then I am going to be okay. And it is precisely my love and desire to follow Jesus that is fueling my passion to do justice in the world. To work to un-politicize the Gospel. To work for a better world for all people. Jesus is my motivation. He’s my goal. And I firmly believe that for most millennial Evangelicals, this passion for Jesus will continue to empower and spur us on to a much more robust faith, hope, and love."

Who is Noah and How Does Noah's Story Tell Us of God? Part 1

Noah - Official Trailer (2014) [HD] Russel Crowe, Emma Watson




"In its early stages, religion means certainty about many things.

But... he is most religious who is certain of but one thing,

the world-embracing love of God." 

- Charles Hartshorne

Introduction

There are several things I know. I know that we live in a spiritual world as much as a material world. This is my personal belief and the beginning point of my being. It's an admission within me as a poet-theologian as much as it is a statement of skepticism towards modern day religion and human beings search for meaning on whatever basis it comes. Because of this belief, I believe in miracles. In prophecy. And in the inspiration of the Bible. The balances are tipped in the scales of my heart towards the spiritual over the material.

And yet, the materialist in me would deny this belief and say, (i) "everything can be explained naturally - especially biblical miracles" as science continues forward. That, (ii) "prophecy is fore-telling alone without the forth-telling aspect of the aspectual prophecy." That the prophecy's appearance, or expression, to the mind comes with the accompanying observation of its nature, character, or the quality of the thing being viewed, presented, or interpreted by the prophet, his audience, or consequential events. And that, (iii) "the Bible is merely a collection of human writings and gathered stories from the tongues of religious story tellers to communities who were passionate about their beliefs, or emptied of any beliefs whatsoever and wanting answers however they may come. Who passed those storied traditions along  - with or without embellishment (or loss of it) - warts and all, through local colouring and flavoring. So that the story's legend grew through through time into a modern midrash of human compendium and experience. Insights and wisdoms. Beliefs. Superstitions. Heart felt joy. Songs, prayers, and thanksgiving.

And thus the tone and tempo for our discussion of Noah is set. Is it a spiritual story, or a material story, or some admixture of both? Is Noah himself a man or a myth? If prophet, priest, and judge, than by what moral, ethical, or religious standard? Is the Bible's account to be read as literally true or as a literary genre expressing religious values and self-identity. Values as much about life itself as about ourselves, our needs, and our wants... or something that can tells us about who we are? And if there was no global flood than where is the miracle? If the animals were not collected two-by-two than where is the sense of God's preservation, power, and judgment upon man's wickedness and evil? Of the Creator's displeasure with man? Or His abiding patience and longsuffering for His creation? It's caretake and salvation? If the future of the world is not to be one of annihilation by fire than how can we ever again read the Bible without doubting its pages or doubting the God of its pages?

Eh, verily, these and more questions rapidly come to mind. For in truth, we yearn for a fellowship with our Maker. One that would tell us of ourselves, our creation, our sin, and need for redemption. Not a mortal-filled book spilling with ancient beliefs and superstitions, native customs and conventions, local ignorance and regional fables. But a divine book Spirit-made and Spirit-wrought. One honoring universal truths, wisdoms, beliefs, and eternal promises. If the Bible is to be believed than how do we approach the story of Noah? His ark, the flood, man's judgement, and ultimate renewal?

And there is the cusp of the problem when coming to the biblical narrative of Noah. His story sets the tempo in our hearts to challenge all that we think we know of God. Of the world. And of mankind. It challenges our pet beliefs. Our dogmas. And the very fabric of our faith. It tests us by asking us about this "other Noah" that we have made whether by legend or by fact. If whether we have made Noah in our own image (and imaginations) even as we may have crafted the image of God after our own needs and necessities. A God whom we must test to believe in order to live out a God-faith in a sin-filled world racked by human greed and pride. Pain and suffering. Made more of fate than destiny. It is this "other Noah" whom we come to in order to re-discover the God of our lives lest all falls apart within our fragile worlds of faith and belief.

For myself, I realized a profound necessity for my belief in God. That it is this belief that has defined me. That makes me who I am. That marks me. That drives me forward. For without it I would be the poorer. The more wasted. The more ruined. But with it everything I am remade as if by divine hands of love which I see everywhere about. Or everywhere rejected. Or everywhere renewing and redeeming even as it is feared, doubted, spurned, and denied. Even so, by this divine love I must also have a realistic God and not a fanciful one. A realistic faith and not the one of my childhood's youth found upon a Sunday School's faith made of fantasy, fiction, and whim by erstwhile teachers.

If it is to be a mature faith than it will have to look at the stories of the Bible and see them for what they are, as much as for what they are not. And to not think that the God I know of in the Bible can be lost. Or in need of my defense for His existence. Or denial. But through their collective narratives I must come to see the God who spoke in-and-through the ancients of His will and power, grace and love, mercy and forgiveness. Who gave hope even as He forewarned and judged. A God who rules today EVEN as He did so many long eons ago through the many lives - and life's events - that surrounds and moves us within its heavenly streams.

That the only difference between my faith and the ancients' faith of yesteryear will be one of material knowledge based upon science and research, time and event, reason and discourse. But it can also be a journey of faith within all the material discovery and theological arguments made in a grown-up world based upon a grown-up faith that hasn't outgrown its youthful images of God's certainty and guidance. Even in its adult years of skepticism and agnosticism.

This then must be the beginning of our discussion if we are to have a discussion. One that doubts and questions, believes and yearns for the spiritual in a material world. Without this beginning point we can only reinforce our own beliefs about the story of Noah and what it has come to mean to so many today both up-and-down the religious or non-religious aisles. And so, by way of an extended introduction I leave an earlier article written not long ago that might continue this discussion in the weeks ahead as we look into the story of Noah for today's postmodern times. Its academic disbeliefs, its Christian fantasies, its fairytales, its time honored traditions, and amassing lores. Peace.

R.E. Slater

April 10, 2014

---

Excerpt

from Archaeology and the Bible: Sorting through Fact from Fiction

"Bible bashing is not an activity that can be found here at Relevancy22. The Bible is considered God's Holy Word to mankind that is authoritative and inspired but not inerrant. As such, this site does work at conveying to readers how the Bible may be read without adding the forced doctrine of inerrancy (a doctrinal creed that comes courtesy of the Evangelical Theological Society's Chicago Statement of 1980), without losing its spiritual authority in our lives when reading of God's wondrous story of redemption for creation and mankind. That this spiritual recount is inspired by His Spirit and guided by His hand placed upon the passions and burdens of His people over  a very long period of time. That it began as oral history in the form of story telling, religious poems, hymns, songs, incantations, or recitals; to people who were weary, joyful, hopeful, religious, not religious, fearful,  or superstitious; and conveyed by priests, prophets, community leaders, country folk, Bedouins, villagers, city folk, foreigners; who may have been oppressed, humbled, persecuted, enslaved, and exiled, to name a few circumstances and instances.

"So today's topic will review two kinds of reading of the Bible - one that is not-inerrant as versus one that is inerrant - by using an archaeological discovery which is acting like a fast spreading wildfire of public opinion and news. At the outset it is important to notice that we didn't say an "errant" reading of the Bible because that type of reading can be true of both groups - both for the one not holding to inerrancy as well as for the one holding to it. So what does this mean? Well, for the scientist - or archaeologist in this case - rather than to describe something in "error" the preferred term might be "anachronism," meaning something that is unique, different, or a-typical, of what you are studying. That is, one's findings, or discoveries, or calculations, have turned up a salient, singular, result that requires further investigation. And in the case of archaeology, more than in the case of physics or chemistry, those findings may still be hiding in the dirt. And so you wait. You hypothesize. You reflect on patterns and meaning to what is known and what is not known.

a·nach·ro·nism

  [uh-nak-ruh-niz-uh m] Show IPA

noun

1.

something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing orperson that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

2.

an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other thanthe correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.

"Which in this case is whether camels (both the one-hump variety and the two-hump kind) were domesticated in Abraham's day (that is, from Genesis 11 onwards). And if they weren't then why are they described in Genesis (and the Pentateuch) as being present and being used as beasts of burden? Now this isn't new news for those studying ancient biblical ruins, times, or events... but it is to us non-archaeological types that read the news and react to its discourses when it runs afoul of our thinking, prejudices, biblical systems, conventions, and philosophies. It can dissettle us. And when it does we may have one of three reactions: (i) stay calm by reading onwards while reflecting upon the meaning of the discovery; (ii) say "yeah, I suspected this all along!" and excitedly push on into the story as it reflects our pet beliefs, idiosyncrasies, or skepticisms; (iii) or, react in disgust and anger saying, "Confound it, those liberals are at it again, telling me my Bible is wrong, and I am wrong! Anathema on all science and archaeology!" Which is my poor attempt at being humorous over a very serious subject for many, which may hold very serious implications if preferred readings and traditional interpretations of the Bible are being forthrightly challenged to the degree that it requires personal, if not system-wide change and rethinking.

"Which begs the question, how are we to read the Bible? Especially if what we're reading may not be true but filled with authorial largesse more concerned with great story telling than historical accuracy. Which hits at the nub of the problem as any new discovery may conflict with our own private interpretations of a very complex book we know as the Bible. A book spoken, sung, and much later written, by burdened story tellers wishing to convey how God came to them and spoke to their hearts redemptive truths. Truths that required telling - whether it was wanted or not. Perhaps at story teller's own peril or community standing. And, unlike modern day storytelling, the ancients weren't particularly worried about facts, more probably because of their mindset, and just as likely because there were no resources to verify them as there is today in our digital age of "ready online information." As such, biblical story tellers were not buttoned down by the convention of historical accuracy. Rather, they were more concerned in telling of God's great passion, burden, and heart, by using whatever conventions they could to drive home the point which the Lord had so placed upon their heart.

"So when we, as modern day readers, come to this very ancient process of oral tradition that was much, much later written down and then imperfectly preserved through the long centuries of personal and national disruption created by ethos wars, cultural exiles, and civil disobedience, we should not expect a "Star Trek type of Bible" dropped out of the sky into our lap to read unmarred by the many disjointed personalities, events, past traditions, and interpretations of the ancient story tellers. To read the Bible is to try to read, and interpret, its narrative while holding in abeyance its many anachronisms, which are no threat to God or His Word. Though they may be to us and our biblical systems and doctrines which we have built upon select readings of the Bible's "airs and atmospheres." For the scholar, as for the biblical reader in general, the trick is to read its center, and there find God's message of redemption. Of personal sacrifice and love for a creation and for mankind gone off track because of sin and desire. Its spiritual message is deep, and wide, and pregnant with meaning for the empty lives we would live without the presence of our kind Lord and almighty Saviour....."

R.E. Slater

February 21, 2014

More Reference Material -

Michael Graves: The Early Church Father's Many Methods of Interpretation of the Bible

Hermeneutics and Interpretation

The Land of the Dead, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Anthony Hopkins, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Jennifer Connelly, Russell Crowe, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Good v. Evil, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

And so it begins, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Emma Watson, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Does God Change?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/04/does-god-change/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rogereolson_040814UTC010425_daily&utm_content=&spMailingID=45571177&spUserID=Nzg4MDU4NjI4MjkS1&spJobID=420935271&spReportId=NDIwOTM1MjcxS0

by Roger Olson

April 6, 2014

Comments

Statement of Problem

I don’t remember when it happened, but I remember the shock I felt when I first encountered the idea that God cannot change—as an idea I was supposed to believe as an evangelical Christian. It was probably sometime during seminary, but it may have been before in some college religion class. I’m almost certain I never heard it growing up in my evangelical church—except as an expression of God’s faithfulness to himself and to us (viz., that God cannot become someone other than he is).

I have remained faithful all these years as an evangelical Christian theologian to what I learned in Sunday School and from my pastor and other spiritual mentors of my youth: God is faithful to himself and to us and always keeps his promises and cannot be anything but good, but he is affected by what happens in our world and by our prayers.

I was shocked and dismayed to learn that evangelical theologians, by and large, rejected that simple biblical view of God and replaced it with what I have learned to call the “logic of perfection”—that a perfect being cannot change in any way or even be affected by anything that happens in his creation.

What I “saw” early on in my theological training, however, was that those evangelical theologians who strongly touted God’s “immutability” were not very consistent about it. At least that’s what I thought I noticed in their writings. On the one hand, I was told, a good evangelical believes God is impervious to any change including having new experiences. On the other hand, I was told, it was the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, equal with the Father and Holy Spirit, who experienced the incarnation including hunger, thirst, temptation, sorrow, pain and even death. The explanation? That he experienced these things only “through the human nature he took on” through Mary.

In other words, these conservative evangelical theologians told me (through their writings), God-in-himself, God in his divinity, cannot experience anything new or suffer. But God-in-incarnation, the human nature of Jesus, can experience new things and suffer.

---

Observations re Statement

I’m not even going to go into all the problems this raises for Christology. I’ll just say I do believe in the hypostatic union, but not for that reason! Not to protect the deity of Christ from change and suffering.

I will also never forget the relief I felt when I first heard that Pascal said “The God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!” And when I read the evangelical theology of Donald Bloesch who rejected the philosophical logic of perfection in favor of what Emil Brunner called “biblical personalism”—that the God of the Bible is personal and therefore capable of experiencing what is outside of himself including new experiences including suffering.

Bloesch and Bunner held onto the idea I was taught in Sunday School and church as a child and youth—that God is faithful in every way and that is God’s immutability. But they rejected the philosophical (Platonic and Aristotelian) idea of God as an uncarved, immovable, impervious block of stone.

I read conservative evangelical theologians who attempted to reconcile the “orthodox” idea of God’s immutability with God as living by referring to God’s activeness in relation to creation. That is, they said (and still say), that God’s immutability does not mean that God is immobile or passive. But I remember sitting in class and reading this and wondering how that is supposed to solve anything when the same theologians say God is “pure actuality” without any potential to experience anything new? [That is,] such a God may be active but cannot be fully personal in his relations with creatures. And he cannot be the God of the Bible who does not have wings (an anthropomorphism) but does have emotions provoked by creatures (not anthropomorphism).

How do I know this? Well, all one has to do is not ignore or explain away the entire book of Hosea (just one example). The whole story of Hosea requires that God has emotions that require experiences God would not have without rebellious, sinful creatures. The story has no point once you extract that from it. The whole point is the pain Israel’s unfaithfulness caused God.

When I left America to study theology with Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich I took one theological tome with me: Hendrikus’ Berkhof’s Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith. (Of course I bought and borrowed other theological tomes while in Munich; this is the only one I had room for in my luggage!) I read it twice in Munich and found Berkhof a breath of fresh air (except his functional Christology). I especially like his description of God as our superior, faithful covenant partner who voluntarily allows himself to be affected deeply by us (“changeable faithfulness”).

What’s ironic about all this is that, when it comes to belief about God’s ability to change (or not) my view has not changed significantly since Sunday School and the church of my youth. “Changeable faithfulness” sums it up well. After four degrees in theology and thirty-two years teaching Christian theology in three universities, my belief about God’s immutability remains the same even if somewhat more sophisticated (by being supported by personalist theologians such as Bloesch, Brunner and Berkhof).

So, to put it in theological terms:

"God, I believe, could have remained fully God without lack or need, without any creation. However, creation out of love (the overflowing of the inner-trinitarian love of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the most understandable thing because of God’s great love."

Just as a married couple want (not need) a child to share their “couple love” with, so God wanted (not needed) a creation and beings created in his own image and likeness with whom to share his/their love. But because God is personal love, the history of creation affects God inwardly and not only outwardly. God’s emotional life is affected by what creatures do because God is love.

But through it all, God remains who he is and always has been and always will be. God’s relation to creation does not take anything away from God’s being or character or add anything to it—ethically or ontologically. Emotionally, however, creation does affect God. And God experiences new things in relation to creation. But all this is by God’s free choice; not necessity.

I must admit that I tend to think any other view tends to elevate philosophy over the biblical revelation of God and therefore is, in the most important sense, unorthodox.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

      

Arminianism re God's Providence, Free Will, Sin, and Evil

Arminianism and God's Providence
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/arminianism-and-providence/

by Roger Olson

March 1, 2014

Comments

One of the questions I’m asked most often is about God’s providence in Arminian theology. Most people know that Arminians do not believe that God micromanages history or human lives–especially not in terms of evil. That is, Arminians do not believe that God designs, foreordains or renders certain sinful acts. Sin and evil are included in God’s consequent will, not God’s antecedent will. God governs them but does not design, foreordain or render them certain.

I have expressed my own overall view of God’s providence this way: “God is in charge but not in control”. However, some Arminians objected to that. I’m not going to repeat my explanation or defense of that here. My one concern here, right now, is to explain THAT being Arminian does not require one to believe that God NEVER interferes with free will.

The only category of creaturely decisions and actions where God NEVER interferes with free will IN THE SENSE OF rendering them certain is sin and evil. God permits them but does not design, foreordain or render them certain.

One qualification is necessary even here. In relation to creaturely decisions and actions that are sinful, God never designs, foreordains or renders certain individuals’ evil decisions and actions that would cause their condemnation.

But my main concern here, now, is to say that God DOES interfere in free will in guiding and directing our lives as his people. He is not the author of our sins or failures, but he does direct our lives in terms of opening and closing doors.

My point is that for the Arminian, God is not a “deist God”–uninvolved and only observing. God is intimately involved in the details of our lives–to the extent that we allow him to be. If we shut him out of our lives and tell him to leave us alone he will, saying, reluctantly, “Okay, thy will, not mine be done.” This, too, of course, is within his will–consequently but not antecedently.

This is how I understand God’s providence in my life when I sing, for example, hymns that talk about God “appointing my pathway, knowing just what is needful and best.” I never think such lyrics mean God designs, foreordains, or renders certain, my sins or failures. I take them to mean that God has a plan for my life and, insofar as I surrender to his will, whatever happens to me is “needful and best.”

Of course, God does not design, foreordain or render certain OTHERS’ sins that impact my life. In that case he permits me to be impacted by their sins and brings good for me out of them. But I have no problem believing that he foresees their sinful intentions and allows me to be in the path of their consequences insofar as that “needful and best” for me.

I do not think God is particularly concerned about my comfort. My life is what philosopher-theologian John Hick called a “vale of soul making”–a space for God to test me, strengthen me, prepare me, use me. Much of what I suffer may very well be His will. I do not expect God to be “fair” to me or keep me from harm (although I believe praying for him to preserve my life and help me in times of trial is always good).

People who think that the Arminian God must be thought of as remote, distant, uninvolved need to be corrected. I hope I have helped with that.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"