Three Aspects of Arminianian Hope: "A Godly Kingdom That Is Becoming"

A Guest Post: “Three Reasons Why I Preach An Arminian Theology”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/10/a-guest-post-three-reasons-why-i-preach-an-arminian-theology/

 

by T.E. Hanna (Guest Post on behalf of Roger Olson)

October 25, 2013

Comments

I think it is fair to say that our contemporary Christian subculture is saturated in a Reformed theology. This isn’t necessarily bad. Many of these voices hail from brilliant scholars whose knowledge and wisdom adds powerful depth and vibrancy to our understanding of God and scripture. D. A. Carson’s commentary on the New Testament use of the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, is always within reach when I dig through one of Paul’s epistles. The cultural reflections of The Gospel Coalition provide ready handles for grabbing hold of contemporary issues and thinking through them from a Christian perspective. Tim Challies has a powerful gift for breaking down complex theological ideas into easily accessible concepts. These voices add something of value to our modern Christian landscape.

 

At the same time, the sweeping move within Western Christianity to adopt a theological lens rooted in Calvinism means that other pieces of the puzzle — important pieces —are either left behind or left wanting.

 

As a pastor, I have found that proclaiming an Arminian theology to my congregation has become increasingly important amidst the growing influence of Reformed theology. Not only does Arminianism staunchly defend the character of a good and loving God, but it also retains the power of the Christian hope. In a world where hope is challenged by the repeated barrage of the suffering we see in the media, the beauty of the Christian message is sorely needed.

 

An Arminian understanding retains this hope, and it does so on three levels.

 

 

1. Hope For Our World

 

Rather than a marked selection of individuals chosen by God to one day leave earth behind and step into a heavenly kingdom, Arminianism presents a God whose kingdom is invading our world even as we speak. This is part of the glory of Christianity — that when Jesus arose from the waters of His baptism proclaiming that “the kingdom of God is at hand”, He meant what He said. Our world is a broken place, afflicted with the realities of suffering and pain, but the Spirit that hovered over the waters in Genesis 1 still broods over His creation. What we find is a hope for the present, a restoration that begins now, and a God who invites us into the midst of His work.

 

 

2. Hope For Our Communities

 

The Reformed doctrine of Unconditional Election paints a stark picture when faced with those who do not yet know Christ. If God chooses some for salvation and not others, the parallel implication is that He thus rejects some and not others. Hope languishes in the face of an unchanging God that has chosen to reject from salvation some of the very people we have come to love. An Arminian perspective addresses this, however, removing that rejection from God and placing it where it belongs: in the human heart. The beauty of this is that such a rejection is not yet final. While God is unchanging, we are not. God is still working, still extending His grace, still inviting our friends and family to respond to His love. This imparts to us a responsibility to make that love known, but it also fills us with hope in knowing that just as He wooed us, so is He wooing them. They, too, have the opportunity to respond to the grace that He so lovingly extends to all.

 

 

3. Hope For Ourselves

 

Perhaps the most beautiful aspect of Arminian theology is found in the broader concept of salvation. To us, salvation is so much more than those slated for heaven and those abandoned to hell. Instead, salvation is about life — abundant life — that begins here and extends forth into eternity. What we are being rescued from is not just eternal condemnation, but sin itself. Sin, left unchecked, will ultimately consume and destroy us. The beauty of grace, however, is that these chains are slowly being stripped from our soul. This is the image of sanctification to which we cling: that we are progressively being freed from those very things which rob us of our own humanity. Freedom does not wait until the kingdom of God is manifested in the eschaton. It begins now, transforming and shaping us, and leading us on into the eternity where our glorious hope shall finally be viewed in full.

 

This is why I preach an Arminian theology. It is not only because I hold it to be true, but because I believe it to be necessary. In an era where the objects of our hope are challenged on a daily basis, we need to be reminded that God is still here. He is still working. He is still restoring. He is still loving and extending His grace. It is in His grace where our hope finds wings.

 

T E Hanna is the author of Raising Ephesus: Christian Hope for a Post-Christian Age, and he writes regularly on issues of faith and culture on his blog at OfDustAndKings.com.

 

 

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.T. Wright, "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" (Vol 4) - What Jewish Monotheism Means

Monotheism in a Christian Framework: NT Wright

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/10/31/44747/

 

by Scot McKnight

Oct 31, 2013

Comments 

At the heart of Paul’s theology is classic Jewish monotheism ([compared] to later philosophical and theo-logical monotheism), and NT Wright opens with a sketch of Jewish monotheism and then shows how Paul reframes Jewish monotheism.

 

1. First Century Jewish Monotheism

 

Wright begins with Akiba being martyred, and in the act of dying reciting Shema as his expression of loving God with his “life” (naphsheka).

 

As we saw earlier, the most intimate and personal way of ‘taking on oneself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven’ was the praying of the Shema, two or more times a day. Invoking YHWH as the ‘one God’ and determining to love him with mind, heart and nephesh - life itself - meant a total commitment to the sovereignty of this one God, the creator, the God of Israel, and a repudiation of all the idols of paganism and the cruel empires which served them. That is, more or less, the very heart of what ‘monotheism’ meant to a devout Jew of the period (620).

 

And from 623-624: If what we loosely summarize as ‘monotheism’ is to be clarified in terms of the world of thought and practice we may safely ascribe to Saul of Tarsus, we should expect to find it, not in the realm of fine-tuned religious or philosophical speculation, not in debates about how many angels are permitted in the divine entourage before they compromise the divine unity, but in the sphere of Israel’s aspirations, Israel’s kingdom-of-God expectations. Monotheism of the sort which fired Saul of Tarsus meant invoking God as creator and judge, and also as the God specifically of Israel, and doing this within a framework of actual events, including not least the fierce opposition by pagan tyrants, leading in some cases to torture and death. Jewish monotheism was rooted in prayer, particularly in praying of the Shema. To pray this prayer was not to make a subtle affirmation about the inner nature of the One God, but to claim the sovereign rule of this One Creator God over the whole world, and to offer oneself in allegiance of mind, heart and life itself in the service of this God and this kingdom.

 

This kind of Jewish monotheism, so rooted in actual realities, is an affirmation not of ontological dualism but the goodness of creation and the created order as well as opposition to idolatries. This kind of monotheism formed itself into a community, Israel.

 

 

2. Paul’s Re-Affirmed Monotheism.

 

From p. 634: The central claim of this chapter, and in a measure of this whole book, is that Paul clearly, solidly, skillfully, and dramatically reworked exactly this ‘monotheism’ around Jesus the Messiah and also around the spirit. It is for the sake of Jesus, and in the power of the spirit, that Paul faces, and knows that his ekklēsiai are facing, the equivalent challenges to those faced by the Maccabees before him.

 

We see Paul’s robust monotheistic faith in Romans 8:28-39, and in 2 Corinthians 4; Philippians and 1 Thessalonians — the interlocking themes of suffering and Jewish monotheism are held together as they are found from the Maccabees to Akiba. Allegiance to Israel’s one God means opposition from the surrounding world.

 

Then, too, we see the same monotheism in God as creator and God as judge. From p. 638: “Monotheism of the second-temple Jewish kind, as we saw, was the belief not so much that there was one supernatural being rather than many, or that this God was a single and indivisible entity, but that the one true God was the creator of the world, supreme over all other orders of being, that he would be the judge of all, and that in between creation and a final putting-to-rights he had a single purpose which arched its way over the multiple smaller stories of his creation and, not least, of Israel.

 

In practice, classic Jewish monotheism also means one people. P. 641: “A further tell-tale sign of Paul’s foundational commitment to his ancestral Jewish monotheism comes in a couple of short but crucial passages. In all of these we see Paul drawing on the basic monotheistic heritage to argue for the unity – not indeed of ethnic Israel, but for what he saw as the renewed people of God in the Messiah.” Here Abraham comes to the front of Wright’s discussion — the Abraham in whom the new family finds its home, e.g., Galatians 3:27-29.

 

 

 

Continue to Index -

 

Index to the "New(er) Perspective(s) of Paul"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trick-or-Treat? What Does It Mean to be Unified in Christ?

 

Frankly, I don't follow Christianity Today (CT) any more. I use to care greatly about what they thought and published but since my "rebirth" from my evangelical stupor over the past dozen years and more I have found CT, its contributors, and its selective readings of today's theological issues, topics, and ideas, naïve at best, and dissembling at worst. 

dis·sem·ble

 

/dɪˈsɛm bəl/  verb, dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling.

verb (used with object)
 

1. to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of: to dissemble one's incompetence in business.

2. to put on the appearance of; feign: to dissemble innocence.

3. Obsolete . to let pass unnoticed; ignore.

 

Today's article from October 22nd more than proves my point. Here, Christena Cleveland gives an agreeable argument for the necessity of embracing Christian unity in its diversity of cultural ideas, theology, and adaptation of Christianity, uplifting difference and dissimilarity as admiral marks of any mature organization, religion, or faith. And in reply comes CT's officious proclamation under an amanuensis (sic, a person employed to write what another dictates, or to copy what has been written by another; a secretary.) that these ideas are agreeable to a point before marking off uncrossable sanctioned barriers. Barriers which, if crossed, makes a Christian anathema to their (evangelical) faith, to be described in whispered tones of being (or becoming) a false prophet carrying an unchristian gospel only worthy of biblical rebuke, reproof, condemnation, judgment and wrath. Where such a one is to be abandoned from the hallowed halls of the body of Christ unless an acceptable level of "homogeneity" is restored in balance with the general beliefs and tenets of evangelicalism's main ideas and message.

 

Hence, while Cleveland argues for the idea of unity within an enlarged Christian fellowship beyond the more restrictive definitions of its borders and boundaries, CT's reviewer rejects this auspicious idea by warning that it is a ruse, or a trick, to get Christians to betray their faith:

 

"While I find this "trick" beneficial, it does not fit every scenario. As an evangelical theologian committed to ecumenical unity framed by grace and truth, I wish Cleveland would have helped distinguish more clearly between areas where theological reconciliation is possible and areas where it is not." - CT

 

In effect, to bear the attitude of a general Christian acceptance of a (non-evangelic) brother or sister falls under the Halloween-like guise of conveying a godly "love and unity" which is basically a slick authorial "trick" or rubric that would open up any culpable reader to the dangers of moving away from the bastions of evangelical Christendom. The reviewer goes on to suggest that to take the author's attitudinal perspective would be like departing from the "narrow road" cautiously travelled unto an exiting off-ramp leading to a "larger road" of certain spiritual death, misleading ideas, and a disingenuous Gospel. Though the idea is good, it is not good enough when it leads to unsanctioned biblical ideas and teachings.

 

"Take, for example, 1 John 4:18 ("There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"), to which Cleveland refers briefly in her treatment of the culture wars. The epistle's emphasis on love in chapter 4 appears only after a renunciation of teachers who deny the Incarnation. While doctrinal differences can be used to humble, strengthen, and enhance our perspectives, they often convey unbridgeable boundaries. "Perfect love" insists on certain rightful boundaries between truth and falsehood. This is not because we "fear" those on the other side, but because out of love we don't want them to be deceived." - CT

 

In sanctimonious unction the reviewer than proclaims the preferred "contextual" reading of 1 John 4 by qualifying Jesus' admonition to love one another with the apostle John's further admonition to hold to Jesus' incarnation (v.15)... or, in modern evangelical parlance, to only love those who are of the same doctrinal "brotherhood." Suggesting that all other Jesus-followers are not of God, but false and untrue. To this arena of demarcation we then get the unstated rubric of the three kinds of biblical "love" in the Bible - eros, phileo, and agape (translated: deeply passionate love; brotherly love within the church's fellowship; and godly love for those outside the church; as it is normally described).

 

The idea being here of carefully qualifying who is "in" or "not in" the true church's fellowship. And in this sense, to beware of deceptive ruses suggesting indiscriminately love in Christ as a binding blinder so that its participants become unaware of the false gospel that it conveys. A gospel bourne of false prophets and teachers. Not that this reviewer suggests that Cleveland is a charlatan, just that her idea contributes to the unqualified idea of an indiscriminate love that can be hazardous to evangelicalism's stricter theological walls of "biblical truth." Choosing always for truth over love, rather than love over truth. For those who wish this latter course, beware the larger consequences of becoming proselytized to a more worldly, less "Christianized" ideas beyond one's current fellowship. It is a message of fear. And unduly so as I will explain.

 

For the "trick" here is actually a "treat" not cooked in a witch's brew of discord and canker, but in the delights of discovering a newer, unbounded land of freedom shed of its religious blinders and deceptions. Which brings me to my reasons for leaving the attitudinal boundaries of my more restrictive evangelicalism, to a broader definition of what my Christian faith should bear. Yes, I believe in an incarnate Christ. It is one of the bedrocks of my faith. But I no longer qualify my faith by an adherence to evangelicalism's ideas of strict inerrancy, spontaneous creation, a dipolar God, a gospel of wrath, judgment, and exclusivity, nor any other dozens of qualifiers.

 

I have decided to "progress" beyond my formerly closed theological boundaries to a more open center-set nexus of a Jesus-centered faith. That is, a faith in which Jesus is first, and not my beliefs about my Christian religion first. To be marked as a Jesus follower rather than a follower of my temple, my church, my dogma, doctrine, or religious tribe. It is less rigid, more reflective, more open and accepting of postmodernism, and of science in general. It grants to biblical studies a historical, narrative theology and multi-vocal biblical hermeneutic, that leads out in unconditional, non-qualifying love that is inclusive and not exclusive. That serves others and not itself. And does not lead out in judgment and condemnation, or by denominational drivers or doctrinal barriers.

 

It is postmodern, emergent, and progressive in traditional Christian orthodoxies by updating one-and-all with today's newer research and biblical discoveries. Importantly, it is willing to critique its former idea of itself by deconstructive and reconstructive philosophical elements. Is unafraid of its doubts about God, His Word, or of the church in general. Does not have the incessant demand of needing answers and solutions to every event or mystery uncovered in the Bible or within our lives (that is, it tries to be non-apologetic realizing that all apologies but support their own narrower epistemologies even as I am doing now in this apology for my faith :/ ). Is critical of itself, its epistemologies, and its pride, and is properly confessional where, and when, this is possible. It is active in Christian love and reclamation of people in humanitarian projects; this Earth in ecological restoration; and in philosophic discussions. At the last, it is an apocalyptic Christian faith that doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but to become in our midst."

 

Though CT's reviewer likes the idea of unity within the Church it must be a unified church around his own ideas of what the Christian faith is - as set out in its dogmas and doctrines. By this admission, unity is a good thing, but it can also be a lamentable thing should it disrupt and destroy the fabric of evangelicalism as it is presently understood by its official organs of media dissemination (churches, schools, seminaries, and so forth).In the process, it refuses genuine discussion and openness to biblical movement and sway, preaching fear instead of hope; blind allegiance to its binding agencies; and exclusion to any unlike itself. It has become its own templed bastion similar to the Pharisaical Jewish laws and teachings in Jesus' day needing its pillars broken, and dividing curtain ripped in twain, that the Word of God's good news can be released to all of mankind, and not to the elected few.

 

So then, what does it mean to be unified in Christ? Is it a trick, or is it a treat? For many Christians they see it as a trick. But for some, they have unexpectedly discovered it to be a great, sumptuous treat that will last far beyond the sugar-rush of evangelical doctrine. It is become a hollowed celebration of freedom and not a Halloween of dungeons and dragons, if I may misuse the adage. To those few adventurers, be worthy of your exploration to God's unknown lands of bounty awaiting you. As Joshua's spies soon discovered, they dwelt in a land of "milk and honey," though they rightfully feared the "giants" of their day. For such explorers our giants have become bound Christian tradition against a rampant atheism set abroad and about. It will take the wisdom of God to search out and reclaim by the power of His Spirit in loving proclaim.

 

R.E. Slater

October 31, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden
Forces that Keep Us Apart

 

 

 

Why Don't We Recognize God's Gift of Diversity?http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/channel/comments/allreviews.html?id=112413&type=article

 

by Paul Louis Metzger

October 22, 2013

Comments

 

Christena Cleveland examines the cultural differences

that frustrate the quest for Christian unity.

 

Christians value Jesus' prayer that they—his followers—may be as one (John 17:22–23). But valuing Christian unity is not the same as realizing it. Sometimes we settle for bland homogeneity rather than delighting in the church's mix of cultures, ethnicities, and social backgrounds. Those like me who work deliberately to cultivate Christian unity face trials and failures along the way. Despite our good intentions, we end up getting mean and nasty, or just plain weary, hurt, and discouraged. Why?

 

Individual personalities, faults, and sins are not the only factors. Group dynamics also make a difference. "Sometimes," according to social psychologist Christena Cleveland, "we are affected in hidden ways by those around us. The values and perceptions of the groups with which we identify can have a covert effect on us."

 

Where can we turn for assistance? In Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces That Keep Us Apart (InterVarsity Press), Cleveland helps readers view people of diverse cultural backgrounds as God's gifts, not thorns in the flesh. She provides invaluable insights, practical recommendations, and tools to help the Christian community identify and address the dynamics that fracture Christ's body.

 

Cleveland's analysis tackles difficult questions about the social forces that frustrate our quest for unity. What leads people to associate with those who are similar, while distancing themselves from diverse others? What causes us to categorize other groups in distorted ways? How do social identity and self-esteem play into group perceptions of others? How do "cultural threats" lead us to approach other groups with hostility? And how do cultural influences shape beliefs and practices in limiting and divisive ways?

 

Cleveland does not discount substantive ideological and cultural differences or deny how hard it is to discard our various "labels." She agrees that principles and theological convictions are important. But "the trick is to wisely use our Christian friends' ideology to humble us, strengthen us, and enhance our understanding of God and the role we're called to play in his kingdom."

 

While I find this "trick" beneficial, it does not fit every scenario. As an evangelical theologian committed to ecumenical unity framed by grace and truth, I wish Cleveland would have helped distinguish more clearly between areas where theological reconciliation is possible and areas where it is not.

 

Take, for example, 1 John 4:18 ("There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"), to which Cleveland refers briefly in her treatment of the culture wars. The epistle's emphasis on love in chapter 4 appears only after a renunciation of teachers who deny the Incarnation. While doctrinal differences can be used to humble, strengthen, and enhance our perspectives, they often convey unbridgeable boundaries. "Perfect love" insists on certain rightful boundaries between truth and falsehood. This is not because we "fear" those on the other side, but because out of love we don't want them to be deceived.

 

My hope, ultimately, is that Disunity in Christ will create new momentum toward fulfilling Jesus' prayer for unity amongst his followers. Those involved in building and supporting multiethnic Christian communities will be moved by Cleveland's stories, perspectives, and gracious spirit. Her book will, I hope, help us resolve generational, economic, political, and theological differences—and teach us to see that, truly, we are better off together.

 

Paul Louis Metzger is professor of theology at Multnomah Biblical Seminary. He is the author of Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church (Eerdmans) and coauthor of Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Brazos).

 

 

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"

 

Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"






 

Jesus' Possibilities of Marriage or Celibacy in His Early Life and Later Public Ministry

 

 

Did Jesus have a wife? I wouldn’t touch that with a 10-foot shepherd’s staff, but I know someone who will

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/10/did-jesus-have-a-wife-i-wouldnt-touch-that-with-a-10-foot-shepherds-staff-but-i-know-someone-who-will/

 

by Peter Enns

October 28, 2013

Comments

 

Today’s post is an interview with Anthony Le Donne on his new book The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals. Le Donne (PhD, Durham) is the author-editor of six other books including The Historio-graphical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. He co-founded the Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Sacred Texts Consultation and serves as an editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. He is an affiliate of the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible at St. Mary’s University College, London and an adjunct lecturer at the University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA.

 

OK, the elevator speech: what is this book about?

 

Christianity. Our fear of sex.Our fascination with sex. Our desire for Jesus to remain just less than human. The fact that our simultaneous fear and fascination with sex creates a market for scandal. It is also a critical assessment of the question: was Jesus married?

 

What motivated you to write about the “wife of Jesus”?

 

Well, I’ve been listening to the conspiracy theories and Christian (over)reactions to a sexualized Jesus for a long time now. I’ve been observing the ebb and flow between pseudo-historians and media outlets.  This topic isn’t going away. The Christianized West is simply too invested in Jesus and too preoccupied with sex to let go of the idea of a wife of Jesus. The humanity of Mary Magdalene has become a casualty in this process. She’s become something of a keyhole into the topic of Jesus’ libido.

 

I kept waiting for the professional historians to step into the conversation and tell us that marriage for romance is a recent invention and that Jesus’ marital status would have been in the hands of his parents. Despite Karen King’s best efforts, the media wanted to make the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” (a Coptic fragment she recently revealed) about the Jesus of history.

 

Even then, the national conversation lacked what I saw as the central issue: understanding Jesus in his culture. So I figured that I’d write a book that brings out the crucial aspects of Jesus’ culture that must be addressed in order to answer the question: was Jesus married?

 

And, in your view, what are those factors?

 

If Jesus was celibate, it wasn’t because he was too holy for sex. Conversely, if Jesus was married, it wasn’t because of his romantic inclinations.

 

Marriage had to do with family honor and economic stability. Without an appreciation for the relationships between honor, property, and masculinity, we simply lack the ability to assess Jesus’ marital status. Most importantly, our views on celibacy and lack of progeny were not their views.  We associate celibacy with holiness in many cases. We associate sex with naughtiness and scandal.  But in Jesus’ culture, celibacy would have been viewed as “unholy” by most; it would have been considered an “alternative lifestyle”.

 

We’ve created a scandal out of Jesus’ marital status; but this is our scandal, not theirs. If Jesus had a literal wife, it wouldn’t have scandalized any of his contemporaries.

 

So, did Jesus have a wife? Do you give an answer in your book?

 

As I began to study this issue, I fully expected to argue for a Jesus who was likely married shortly after puberty as arranged by his parents. Short life expectancy, early marriage norms, the demand for progeny to ensure the survival of the family, maternal mortality rates during childbirth, the altogether positive views on marriage in Jewish thought—all of these factors had me thinking that Jesus would have entered an arranged marriage at around 20 years of age. These factors still compel me to take the notion of a literal wife of Jesus seriously.

 

What I wasn’t expecting to discover was the relevance of Jesus’ repeated anti-wealth statements. Add to this the many points of evidence that Jesus had an aberrant view of family honor and an atypical view on blood ties. I concluded that he was most likely celibate during his [public] preaching career. In short, Jesus did not command his disciples to become conduits of “civic masculinity”. Whatever his parents might have arranged for him in his early adulthood, Jesus looks quite subversive on topics related to “family values” during his public career.

 

And this surprised you?

 

Yes, quite! I had read Jesus’ anti-wealth statements a thousand times, but I had never considered how these statements might relate to honor, family, and progeny. Studying about the various ways that the voices and names of women are silenced and marginalized in history, I realized that the topic of wealth and family were inseparable from traditional expectations of masculinity.

 

Jesus blesses the man “who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children.” He blesses “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” He anticipates a time when people will bless “childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!” Concerning paternal honor and inheritance, he says, “Let the dead bury their own dead.” There are dozens of episodes where Jesus takes a quite subversive stance on economic security and family honor.

 

I tend to resist theses that set Jesus over and against his contemporaries; the historical Jesus has to make sense within his cultural context. So I was quite surprised to find a Jesus who subverted traditional notions of masculinity.

 

If Jesus was possibly married in his early adult years but likely single during his public career, what does this do to theories that imagine Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus?

 

The legacy of Mary Magdalene is a key thread in my book. The “wife of Jesus,” in many ways, is a construct that we’ve invented in the last decade, a cultural symbol that has emerged quite recently in our collective imagination.

 

This development provides an interesting mirror for the Christianized West - Magdalene’s legacy illustrates much more about us than it reveals about her as a historical figure. Mary’s 2000-year evolution from disciple, to obscurity, to prostitute, to royalty, to girlfriend, to wife reflects our sexual fascinations at almost every turn.

 

Unfortunately, our imaginations have not been kind to Mary. I think that it is noteworthy that Mary stands alone as an independent figure when she is characterized in the Gospels. She is not the wife of somebody or the mother of somebody.

 

Given that this is a scandalous topic, have you experienced any hostility?

 

Not much. I do get the occasional sideways glance or the anonymous Facebook comment that betrays a certain discomfort. It’s completely understandable. I argue that Jesus’ views on sexuality were quite nontraditional.  It’s bound to challenge religious provincialism on that level.

 

But the most interesting thing that I’ve found is that such hostility is short-lived. As soon as folks realize that my book brings a responsible tone to a sensationalized topic, almost everybody sees the need. I tend to find that the Christians who rolled their eyes at The Da Vinci Code welcome a bit of sober research on the topic.

 

 

 

 

 

Nazarenes Reject Strict Inerrancy in Favor of Soteriological Inerrancy of the Bible

Nazarenes Reject Strict Inerrancy

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/nazarenes_reject_strict_inerrancy/

 

by Thomas J. Oord

September 10, 2013

Comments

 



Amazon Link

Recently, the Church of the Nazarene reexamined its view of the Bible. A study committee then recommended that the denomination retain its current doctrine of scripture and reject strict inerrancy.

 

The Church of the Nazarene is only a little more than 100 years old. Its theological roots are in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. And it has long held the Bible in high regard.

 

Out at the 27^th general assembly, a resolution was brought forward to change the denomination’s view on scripture. The resolution sought to remove the phrase “inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation,” and replace it with the phrase, “inerrant throughout, and the supreme authority on everything the Scriptures teach.”

 

This resolution was one reason why I directed a conference at Northwest Nazarene University (NNU) called “The Bible Tells Me So” in 2011. From that important conference, my colleague in biblical scholarship, Richard Thompson, and I published a book of important essays from leading biblical scholars and theologians.  Several essays in the book deal with the inerrancy issue.

 

A study committee was commissioned at the 27^th general assembly. Biblical scholar, Tom King, chaired the committee, biblical scholar, Alex Varughese, served as secretary, and ten others served. The committee’s report and recommendation were made public this summer at the 28^th assembly. I want to walk you through what I consider the report’s central and most important statements.

 

Opposed to Absolute Inerrancy

 

The report begins by dealing with the proposed change by talking about the strength of the denomination’s current view of the Bible. It emphasizes that the Bible is inspired by God.

 

The heart of the argument comes in the second strength mentioned, namely the phrase that the Holy Scriptures “inerrantly reveal the will of God in all things necessary to our salvation.” The committee notes that this phrase is “distinct from absolute ‘inerrancy’ in every factual detail.”

 

I especially appreciated the committee’s insistence that interpretation matters. We are not infallible in our interpretation of the Bible, they say. And while some Christians think that they are merely stating what the Bible says, this is naïve. “We interpret Scripture,” they write, “guided by the traditions of the Church, in the light of our experience as the people of God, and using sanctified reason.”

 

The committee argues that “the Bible is not to be treated as an almanac or a magic book or a text book of history or science.” But “God’s action in the history of Israel and supremely in the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ was ‘necessary to our salvation.’”

 

The scripture study committee concludes this section by saying “The committee therefore believes that it is not only unnecessary, but that it would be untrue to the Wesleyan tradition, incompatible with Wesleyan theology, and unwarranted by the Scriptures themselves to add any assertion that the Scriptures are ‘inerrant throughout…’” They add that “to assert the complete detailed factual literal accuracy of every part of Scripture (‘inerrant throughout’) raises more problems that it solve and diverts people into unnecessary, distracting, and futile disputes.”

 

Nazarenes, not Calvinists

 

In the remainder of their report, the committee says there are important differences between strict-absolute inerrancy and the Nazarene view of soteriological inerrancy. “We are committed to the belief that the Scriptures give us a sufficiently accurate account of God’s action in the history of Israel and particularly in the birth, life, death, and bodily resurrection of the Lord,” says the committee. But “we do not think that highlighting the issue of detailed factual inerrancy is helpful or necessary to insisting on the full authority and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture.”

 

The Church of the Nazarene views scripture differently from other Evangelical groups. The committee had especially in mind the difference between Nazarenes and a particular Calvinist tradition. “This assertion of the complete inerrancy of Scripture in every detail (‘inerrancy throughout’) comes out of one particular Calvinist tradition,” they write. (Not all Calvinists are strict inerrantists.)

 

The committee notes two “severe” disadvantages in claiming the detailed factual inerrancy of scripture instead of its sufficiency. First, the concept of ‘error’ is not helpful, because it is impossible to define what constitutes an error. “The concept of ‘error’ is an absolutist word applied to something which is necessarily a matter of degree, and it is consequently a nightmare since it leads us straight into frankly silly and futile questions.”

 

Second, the misguided concept of absolute or detailed inerrancy diverts attention to unprofitable debates about unimportant details. “Because we are dealing with ancient literature, we frequently do not have enough information to determine whether an apparent contradiction is truly a contradiction or not.”

 

In the final section, the committee quotes many notable Church of the Nazarene scholars. Virtually all are opposed to the idea that the Bible is “inerrant throughout.” From this, the committee concludes, “Nazarene theologians as a whole, with few if any exceptions, are totally opposed to the idea that we need to assert the complete detailed factual inerrancy of Holy Scripture in order to defend its authority.”

 

After noting that changing the current view from soteriological inerrancy to absolute inerrancy would go against the denominations Wesleyan heritage and against its leading theologians and scholars, the committee says that the proposed change would result in a “narrower fundamentalist view.” And this would create “very serious division in the denomination.”

Thankful

 

When I concluded my reading of this report, I felt a deep sense of gratitude. While no denomination is perfect, I’m so thankful to be part of a group that both champions Scripture but also recognizes its limitations. I appreciate being in a worldwide community that believes God’s purpose for the Bible is that we might use it to follow God’s call of salvation.

 

(Find the full text of the report here on the Didache website.)

 

 

 

Don Thorsen, Calvin vs Wesley - "Their Separate Views & Administration of the Church"

Calvin vs. Wesley on the Church
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/10/30/calvin-vs-wesley-on-the-church/

 

by Scot McKnight

Oct 30, 2013

Comments

 

“The root of ignorance,” Don Thorsen says, “is ‘ignoring,’ and too many Christians intentionally ignore the beliefs, values, and practices of others, including those of other Christians and churches” (Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice, 89). On this Thorsen is not only right but a model of its opposite: he patiently explains both what Calvin teaches AND what Wesley teaches. I admire Don’s effort in this book. Would that we would all be this fair-minded.

 

The problem, he observes, is that “Christians love to set up circular firing squads” (89). Both Calvin and Wesley were firmly and robustly committed to the church; their theologies served the church. This contrasts, I might add, with many today whose “theology” serves only the academy (or themselves).

 

 

FIRST, CALVIN

 

One (invisible), holy (by Christ), catholic (as faithful elect) and apostolic (here absent of the ecclesial traditions). The church is present where there is Word and Sacrament, though often he included church discipline (which he practiced, extending his authority to areas many would today see as beyond the pale). The church though was a “covenant community” and not the same as the invisible, true church.  Calvin famously was overtly and aggressively polemical, especially with Catholics and Anabaptists. Unity for him extended only toward other Reforming and Lutheran churches/leaders. His extraordinary leadership is as unquestionable as his authoritarianism. Thorsen sees a “theocratic” dimension to Calvin.

 

Most problematic is what Thorsen discusses under “magisterial,” a term referring only in part to Calvin’s magisterial leadership in the Reformation but most especially to how he saw the relation between the church and the state (and magistrates). Here’s Thorsen: “Calvin continued to approve of the right and responsibility of civil magistrates… to banish, punish, and even execute people on behalf of the church censures and excommunications” (93). Yes, some explain this as his social context, but I would come back that Jesus transcended the social times on this very issue. Whatever we think of Calvin in this regard, history is what it is.

 

In our terms today, Calvin succumbed to the powers of Constantinianism. He defended hundreds of banishments and executions. He discusses Michael Servetus. Luther said of Calvin: “With a death sentence they solve all argumentation” (96). To be sure, some would argue Calvin’s style made the Reformation possible — others would disagree. Calvin’s style was followed — all the way through the Puritans in New England.

 

 

SECOND, WESLEY

 

He agrees with much of Calvin, especially on the essence of the church in Word and Sacraments (39 Articles), and an emphasis on “living faith” or “faithful men/women” or believers. He wanted more than solid faith but a living faith of obedience from the heart. Orthodoxy, orthodkardia, orthodpraxis. He was less dogmatic because Wesley didn’t think conformity or uniformity were possible. He was also polemical. So he wasn’t as quick to condemn Catholicism even when he disagreed. Here we find generous orthodoxy. He thus welcomed Catholics. He also was loyal to the Anglican Church, though there is some dispute over how loyal he was.

 

Thorsen considers Wesley irenic. I would want to add a much larger, and less polemical, Protestant social context for some of this, but there is an unmistakable and admirable ecumenical spirit about Wesley. In essence, the church needs to defined more by its love.

 

He was not, however, indifferent toward theology [though] some of his heirs today claim his irenicism failed his theological commitments. His famous sermon on this topic is called “Catholic Spirit.” He was no pluralist but believed in church discipline.

 

Church and government. He was socially conservative but disagreed vehemently with Calvin’s implication of state in church affairs.

 

 

 

continue to Index of Articles -

 

Index to past articles on Calvinism v. Wesleyanism

 

 

N.T. Wright, "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" (Vol 4) - Paul's Soteriology

From Worldview to Theology, NT Wright
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/10/29/from-worldview-to-theology-nt-wright/

by Scot McKnight
Oct 29, 2013
Comments

NT Wright, in his Paul and the Faithfulness of God, volume 2, opens up with a sketch of his plan, which I will sketch briefly before we get to Wright’s own proposal: Paul’s theology is thoroughly Jewish from top to bottom, and it therefore revolved around three major themes:

 

Monotheism: God is one and it is the God of Israel.

 

Election: God formed a covenant with Israel by his own will, a covenant that grabbed this nation among the many and gave to Israel a mission to the world. This election and covenant form the soteriology of Israel’s theology.

 

Eschatology: again, God has a plan for history to rule this world with Israel having formed a special role.

 

Paul’s theology though takes these three themes into new territory in reframing each through Jesus and Spirit — thus, a Christology and Pneumatology give the monotheism, election and eschatology reshaped focus.

 

Paul’s mission was to engage both Judaism and the Roman Empire with its paganism in forming churches across the Empire.

 

So now to Wright:

My particular proposal in this Part has a simple outline, unfolding in three stages. 

Stage One - I take as the framework the three main elements of second-temple Jewish ‘theology’, namely monotheism, election and eschatology. I am aware, as I have said before, that second-temple Jews did not characteristically write works of systematic theology… (610). “I am equally aware that many essays in ‘Pauline theology’ have assumed that its central, dominant or even sole theme will be soteriology, and that my proposal may appear to be ignoring this and setting off in a quite different direction. However, as will become clear, I believe that the theme of ‘election’ is the best frame within which to understand Paul’s soteriology, and that ‘election’ in turn is only properly understood within the larger frame of beliefs about the One God and the promised future (and the particular problem of evil which only emerges into full light once the reality of the One God has been glimpsed). Soteriology thus remains at the centre” (611). 

Stage Two - This brings us to the second stage of the hypothesis. I shall argue, in the case of each of these three central and correlated topics, that Paul rethought, reworked and reimagined them around Jesus the Messiah on the one hand and the Spirit on the other (612)…. 

Stage Three - The third stage of the hypothesis is to demonstrate this christologically and pneumatologically redefined complex of monotheism, election and eschatology was directed by Paul in three further ways, which we postpone to Part IV of the present book. I list them here in the reverse order in which they appear in that Part. — First, it was what drove and governed the main aims of his letter-writing…. Second, though, if Paul was indeed redefining the central beliefs of second-temple Judaism, we might expect to find, at least by implication, a running debate between him and others within that world, focused not least on how they were reading scripture (613)…Third, this christologically and pneumatologically redefined Jewish theology was in reasonably constant engagement, again sometimes explicitly and sometimes not, with the pagan world of Paul’s day.

So he is taking 2 Corinthians 10:5 at Paul’s word: the man was capturing every thought for Christ.

And all of this ends up in a local church, in the ekklesiai of Paul:

The result of all this (again, this will come in chapter 16) was the founding and maintaining of communities which, in terms of the first-century world of Diaspora Judaism, were bound to look extremely anomalous. On the one hand, they would seem very Jewish, indeed ‘conservatively’ so. On the other hand, they would seem very ‘assimilated’, since they did not practice the customs and commandments that marked out Jews from their pagan neighbours. But these communities, Paul believed, possessed their own inner coherence, due to the freshly worked elements in the theology which he expounded, elements that were not bolted onto the outside of the parent Jewish theology as extraneous foreign bodies but were discerned to lie at the very heart of what that theology had most deeply affirmed (614). 

 

 

Continue to Index -

 

Index to the "New(er) Perspective(s) of Paul"