The Mission: Love, Penance, Forgiveness, Restoration

The Mission - Trailer - (1986) - HQ

Related: "Whispers in a Dream" (a poem)
by R.E. Slater

The Mission - Gabriel's Oboe (Full HD)

Gabriel's Oboe(Nella Fantasia)

Robert DeNiro reads 1 corinthians 13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmUxkdTZY18&feature=related

1 Corinthians 13

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Way of Love

13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; itis not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 13:3 Some manuscripts deliver up my body [to death] that I may boast
1 Corinthians 13:5 Greek irritable and does not count up wrongdoing

E. Morricone-1986 The Mission [Full Album ]

Ennio Morricone "The Mission"

Sound Track Remix

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kghJGeMYI3U

"Whispers in a Dream," a poem by R.E. Slater

Tony Jones - Five Reasons You Probably Shouldn’t Attend a Christian Seder

Five Reasons You Probably Shouldn’t Attend a Christian Seder

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/04/15/five-reasons-you-probably-shouldnt-attend-a-christian-seder/#more-9936

by Tony Jones

April 15, 2014

The Seder plate at Rabbi Joseph Edelheit’s home, including oranges, olives, and tomatoes.

It’s Passover until this evening, and lots of Christians — especially evangelicals — are attending Passover Seder dinners. But they’re not traditional Seder dinners, with Jews. No, they’re a co-opted rite, sometimes hosted by a “messianic” Jew, and sometimes just by Christians who’ve read a Wikipedia entry.

I’ve been to a Seder for the past couple years. My family and I have been hosted by Rabbi Joseph Edelheit, a sometime contributor to this blog, and a dear friend. In his role as director of the religious studies program at St. Cloud State University, Joseph has hosted Seder dinners for Christian students — at the Lutheran campus ministry for instance — but the difference is that he’s really Jewish. He’s a rabbi. He’s not play-acting. This is really his thing.

Many Christians, particularly evangelicals, are drawn to primitive Christianity. They want to follow Jesus like those first Christians did, before Constantine and Charlemagne mucked everything up with Christendom. I personally think that’s a noble goal, and I’m not totally averse to it. However, having a Seder meal at your church or Christian college is not the way to do here. Here’s why:

1) We know very little about Jesus’ Passover meal. The Gospels themselves equivocate on the meal — either it took place on Passover, or on the night before Passover. In the Synoptics (and Paul), there is bread and wine, but in John only a cup into which both Judas and Jesus dipped their hands. Bread and wine, blessed and passed, was common for any Sabbath meal with family or friends. The Passover meal in the first century surely featured meat, but there’s no mention of that in the Gospels or Paul.

2) The Seder meal as we know it developed well after Jesus lived. Before 70 CE, Passover was a festival celebrated by going to Jerusalem, to the temple. That’s why Jesus and the disciples went there. It wasn’t until after the temple was razed that modern, rabbinic Judaism was born, and along with it the practices and rites we know now as synagogue worship and home-based practices like the Seder dinner. In other words, Jesus didn’t eat horseradish or sip salt water.

3) Early Christian eucharistic meals were not patterned after the Seder, but after the Greco-Roman symposium meal. At a symposium, family and friends would gather for a meal to discuss philosophy, the gods, government, and the like. Social distinctions were temporarily ignored; men and women ate together. The eucharistic meal in the early church took this concept and amplified it, even allowing slaves to join the company.

A funeral banquet

4) The early church often met for eucharist in cemeteries. In the Roman world, friends and relatives of a deceased person would meet at the person’s grace in the necropolis on the 3rd and 30th day after death and have a feast on the sarcophagus. The party was called a refrigerium, meaning “refreshment” for the dead, and the top of the sarcophagus even had a hole to pore food and wine into the casket.

Early Christians, often persecuted for gathering together, took up this practice because Roman officials had so much respect for the dead that the church could meet unmolested in the cemetery. So successful was this rite, that Christians began celebrating the anniversaries of martyrs by meeting at their graves and having an all-night party — one of the only times when women were allowed to be out past dark in the ancient world. The practice was still common in the late 4th century, so much that both Ambrose and Augustine preached against it, but to no avail.

5) How would you feel if a rabbi or imam performed a mock baptism? That’d be pretty weird, right? That’s pretty much how it is when Christians take a practice that is central to Judaism and attempt to recreate it with Christian meaning. Virtually every Jew I’ve ever asked about this finds the practice offensive.

So, if you want to recreate an early church practice, pack a lunch and bottle of wine and go have a party in a cemetery. Or hold a Greek symposium, inviting people who come from different races and classes than you. That’d be a great way to be true to the early church, without stepping on the practice of another religion.

Blinded By Our Own Ideologies

Osteen, Driscoll and the Masking of our Ideology

http://peterrollins.net/2014/03/olsteen-driscoll-and-the-masking-of-our-ideology/

by Peter Rollins

March 21, 2014

I once attended a conference where a religious presenter attempted to defend authentic marriage. In his argument he referred to a problem he felt was created by the kind of celebrity marriages witnessed on TV. He argued that these take away from the depth and authenticity of true marriage by giving people unreasonable expectations concerning both the day and what will happen after it. As part of his defense he even evoked the name of Jean Baudrillard (author of Simulacra and Simulation).

But the approach taken by the presenter was actually a perfect case of what Baudrillard was arguing against. The logic of Baudrillard is not that celebrity marriages mask or eclipse some authentic marriage ritual, but rather that they actually help support the idea that there is such a thing as an authentic marriage ritual.

The obviously fanciful spectacle, in other words, enables people (like this presenter) to argue that there is an authentic alternative located in reality.

“Real” or “authentic” marriage ceremonies are themselves a form of contrivance that can encourage unrealistic expectations and demands. The ancient rituals such as the exchange of rings, declaration of vows, or giving of the bride are all performances taken from religious systems that have simply been around for longer than the type of thing we might witness on the fantasy of reality TV.

Places like Disney World are problematic in the same way because the very fantasy they create actually sustains the idea that the way we structure our lives outside that space is somehow the way things really are, rather than itself an expression of fantasy. The very fact that we can easily discern that Disney World is ideological means that we are more likely to forget that we ourselves are immersed in ideology in our daily life.

One of the main problems with the extravagant forms of religious ideology we see played out in figures like Joel Osteen and Mark Driscoll might not lie in their own obviously ideological character, but in the way that they solidify the idea that there is a non ideological community beyond them (one somehow not immersed in Western Values etc.).

Witnessing their overt ideology thus plays into the hands of those who would like to ignore their own ideological saturation.

The Walt Disney World of Osteen’s church and the Hell House adventure of Driscoll’s communities are then dangerous precisely because they can prevent us from seeing the political and cultural constellation of our own positions.

Who is God for You? Is He Like Us? Us Externalised? Or Wholly Other?

God is (the) Real

http://peterrollins.net/2014/03/god-is-the-real/

by Peter Rollins

March 25, 2014

On twitter I occasionally get asked what I think about the existence of God. It’s usually asked by someone who has a solid grasp of what the term “God” refers to, and they assume that it has the same meaning for everyone else. Hence there is confusion when I reply that I can’t answer in 140 characters. The response is usually that the question is an easy one to answer: yes, no, or not sure.

However the word “God” is anything but simple or stable, and so an answer to the question of “do you believe in God” must be preceded by the question, “what do we mean by the term ‘God’.”

In order to approach an answer to this question I want to make use of a tripartite frame that Lacan developed to understand our subjective world. Lacan taught that our inner universe can be understood through reference to three interconnected registers: the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real.

These are somewhat slippery concepts to get a handle on, but for our purposes we can make use of them without fully defining them. To do this I’ll refer to what it means to treat someone through the filter of the first two registers.

We treat someone at the imaginary level when we see him or her as fundamentally like us. In other words, they are someone who we can admire, love, hate, be jealous of etc. This is relatively easy to understand as we’re broadly aware of the way we exist in competition, or solidarity, with those around us.

When we treat someone in a more symbolic way they operate as a type of stand in for a more basic type of relation. To understand this we can think of how a person might treat their analyst. For example, an individual might relay a dream during their session and then say, “I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking that I resent my mother.” In actual fact the analyst (who is not an expert on your unconscious) is unlikely to have an immediate interpretation of what they’ve said. The claim, “I know what you’re thinking,” is more likely to reflect what the person themselves is thinking, but are unaware of. At this point the analyst might respond by showing surprise or interest in the fact that the analysand (i.e., the patient) assumed what they did. In this exchange the analysand treats the analyst in a more symbolic way. The analyst effectively becomes a type of screen upon which the person’s unconscious is projected (and thus can reflect that projection back to the speaker).

In terms of religion, when the word “God” is employed I would argue that it is used primarily in one of these registers. In popular discourse “God” is basically understood in an Imaginary manner. God is a being like us, a being who speaks, thinks, desires etc. God is a being who we can love, hate, argue with and make up to. The difference between the theist and the atheist here revolves around the idea of whether this God exists or not.

In traditional theological circles God operates more on the Symbolic level. Here God is not named as such, it is claimed that what we say about God reflects ourselves and that we must speak of God as “beyond being,” “ground of being,” or in some other way that avoids the idea of us “speaking of ourselves in a loud voice” (Karl Barth). It is claimed that there is an ineffable reality to God that cannot be penetrated; yet this impenetrable God exposes us to ourselves.

In addition to the Imaginary and the Symbolic registers, Lacan also spoke of the Real. For Lacan, the Real is that which breaks into our Imaginary and Symbolic constellations. The Real is a rupture. The Real cannot be imagined or symbolized, it does not occupy a place, and yet it takes place. The Real is a crack within our existing political, religious and cultural configurations, a resistance that prevents systems from claiming absolute knowledge. It is a destabilizing event that threatens to disrupt the balance maintained by our ideological commitments.

It would seem to me that primitive religion understands God in a predominately Imaginary register (beginning from the Greek gods of antiquity right through to the gods of Western fundamentalism), while theology tends to treat God at the level of the Symbolic (onto-theology and apophatic thought = "speaking of God through negation"). In contrast I employ the term “God” primarily as a name for the Real. Indeed the collectives that I’m part of setting up are primarily committed to this idea of evoking the Real.

Noah - A Man Marked by the Loss of God but Able to Return to the World Where God Is

Noah

Noah: Aronofsky on Obsession, Madness and Loss

http://peterrollins.net/2014/04/noah-reflections-on-aronofskys-divine-madness/

by Peter Rollins

April 1, 2014

With the financial success of films like God’s Not Dead and Son of Man, alongside the fact that other religious movies are being feverishly produced, 2014 has been christened “year of the bible” in Hollywood.

The first big budget film of the year that aims to cash in on this relatively untapped religious market is Darren Aronofsky’s Noah. At first blush it can be read as little more than a cynical Hollywood attempt to tap into a new monetary vein while still sucking from the one that’s fed them thus far. Offer up the relatively safe mix of eye-popping CGI, highly choreographed battles, and simple emotional motivations to appeal to the average moviegoer, while wooing the faithful with a literalistic retelling of a biblical story.

Indeed it seem like the next logical step following the success that came from the producers of Superman, who created a series of sermons based on the film. Sermons written especially so that evangelical leaders could preach from the pulpit about how spiritual it was.

Yet, if this was the motivation of the producers, then it quickly becomes evident that Aronofsky outsmarted them by effectively building a Trojan horse out of the big budget blockbuster format so as to smuggle in a subversive and religiously disturbing content.

The exquisite scandal of Noah becomes clear when one views it in light of Aronofsky’s directorial debut, the darkly mesmerizing Pi. For while Noah is indeed Aronofsky’s first big budget film, it is his second cinematic exploration of the link between religious obsession and madness.

In Pi, the protagonist’s unrelenting drive for a formula that will unlock the secrets of the universe is revealed to be nothing less than a search for the name of God, a search that ends up in his mental and physical breakdown. In Noah, the protagonist undergoes a similar mental collapse when attempting to remain true to his divine call. While both films offer up different conclusions they each share the same fundamental theme.

It’s hard to miss the similarities that exist between Aronofsky’s Noah and Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. For in both a deeply literal and faithful reading of a biblical event is employed to explore a monstrous horror embedded within it. For Kierkegaard; Abraham and Isaac. For Aronofsky; Noah and the flood.

It’s not surprising then that the religious market has broadly rejected the film even though it seems to support their cause. The problem for a religious believer is not that it fails to be literal enough, but that its very literalism uncovers a disturbing truth: that too close a relation to the Other results in a form of madness and death.

Just as Abraham and Isaac are a type of cipher for Kierkegaard, so to is Noah for Aronofsky. In Fear and Trembling we must take a step back from the text in order to see that this is in fact a deeply personal book in which he is wrestling with his love for Regina: the woman who owns his heart, and yet who remains, of necessity, forever distant. Regina stands in for the ultimate object of Kierkegaard’s desire, she is a sun that enslaves him in an impossible orbit, an orbit that prevents him from spinning into space or crashing into the flames (in a painfully poetic way this proximate distance continues to play out even in death, for Kierkegaard is buried just across the way from where Regina lies with her husband).

In the same way it is possible to perceive in Noah a very personal wrestling with what it means to obsessively love something, while maintaining a distance from it.

Psychoanalytically speaking, one might say that Noah is then dealing with the incestuous temptation to transcend the barrier separating us from the desire of The Thing (that Other which we want more than life itself). The choices we have in the face of this temptation being either to (i) break through the prohibition and succumb to a form of death, or (ii) accept the barrier and live with an insatiable sense of loss.

Theologically speaking Noah (alongside Pi) can be read as cinematic expressions of Radical Theology, for Radical Theology can be said to precisely contend with the problematic of separation and loss from The Thing. Structurally speaking then, both Noah and Pi can be read as complex cinematic narratives exploring the consequences of getting too close to the object of our desire.

While Pi has a more radical, and pessimistic, conclusion, Noah offers us some hope. For as Noah is finally able to lay down his obsessive desire, and enter into the play of interpretation, he begins to heal. He is ultimately successful in separating himself from his incestuous desire to be a mouthpiece for his God and is reborn as a man marked by a loss, yet able to return once more to his family and to the everyday concerns of being in the world.

Transformance Art in Pyrotheology - Breaking the Cycle of Repression through Dialectics

Continual Subversion:
Pyrotheology, Dialectics, and the Art of Disruption

http://peterrollins.net/2014/04/continual-subversion-pyrotheology-dialectics-and-the-art-of-disruption/

by Peter Rollins

April 25, 2014

The term “Transformance Art” was coined a number of years ago to describe the praxis of Pyrotheology. Transformance Art is basically a practice that employs various art forms in an attempt to disrupt, disturb, surprise and confront a given individual/community with themselves. This disruption involves bringing to light the things that the individual/community have repressed, things that are likely causing suffering and/or violence. This is why terms like “doubt,” “brokenness,” “lack,” and “self-examination,” are so central to the lexicon of Pyrotheology.

However, when teaching on the subject, I’m often asked what would happen should this transgressive discourse ever achieve popularity. Basically the question is, “if Pyrotheology were to become a new orthodoxy, would that not undermine it’s own ability to unnerve and subvert us”?

This question revolves around the insight that any system of belief can become a type of enclosure to prevent us from being shocked by our own being and disturbed by our own acts. Indeed, as New Atheism makes clear, even a discourse that champions certain forms of non-belief can fall into this trap.

What is missed here is the way that Transformance Art is not designed to preach some system of belief (or non-belief), but rather to encourage a form of dialectic movement in the lives of those who participate (*development through a back-and-forth movement between opposing propositions).

Take the true example of a young man in analysis who described his attachment to a particular woman in terms of a drug addiction. During a session he spoke of how he sought the high of the connection with her even though these were inevitably followed by long, dark lows. As the session came to an end the therapist simply asked if the young man was in fact an addict who was seeking after the lows rather than the highs.

This rhetorical question had the effect of opening up a new line of thought in the analysand (sic, a person undergoing analysis), one that enabled him to explore the idea that he might get something out of his depression, and might even be seeking it out in some unconscious way.

The question asked by the analyst in this session is an example of how a type of dialectic movement might be encouraged, one that can effectively shake an individual out of a certain groove of thought. In a subtle way the analyst was able to present an opposite idea that seemed to uncover a more complex relation to pleasure and pain in the analysand, one that he was previously unaware of. In this brief moment the analysand was surprised by himself and disturbed in a fruitful way.

This is a dialectic move precisely because the negation is already a negation of negation. For when the question, “Are you actually seeking the low” is posed, there is an implication that the individual might be seeking the low because that is where the real high is. In dialectic terms it works like this,

Affirmation – I’m seeking the high

Negation – I’m seeking the low

Negation of negation – I’m seeking the low because I get some kind of high from it

From this insight the analysand might be more able to self-interrogate why he holds onto painful situations.

This example can help us understand one of the fundamental opening moves of Transformance Art. For those who put these events on are committed to a type of dialectic dynamic which attempts to uncover the hidden shadows of the conscious affirmations in a given group. All of which is in the service of surprising the community with its own repressed content (with the hope that this disruption leads to a more healthy, active and joyful community).

This means that Transformance Art aims to be an inherently subversive discourse, one that continually attempts to negate the affirmation of a particular group, regardless of what that affirmation is.

Introducing Andy Crouch - Bio, Videos, Books

Andy Crouch

Andy Crouch - Bio

http://andy-crouch.com/

Andy is the author of Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power, published in October 2013. His book Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling won Christianity Today’s 2009 Book Award for Christianity and Culture and was named one of the best books of 2008 by Publishers Weekly, Relevant, Outreach and Leadership. In December 2012 he became executive editor of Christianity Today, where he is also executive producer of This Is Our City, a multi-year project featuring documentary video, reporting, and essays about Christians seeking the flourishing of their cities.

Andy serves on the governing boards of Fuller Theological Seminary and Equitas Group, a philanthropic organization focused on ending child exploitation in Haiti and Southeast Asia. He is also a senior fellow of theInternational Justice Mission’s IJM Institute. His writing has appeared in Time, The Wall Street Journal, and several editions of Best Christian Writing and Best Spiritual Writing. He lives with his family in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania.

From 1998 to 2003, Andy was the editor-in-chief of re:generation quarterly, a magazine for an emerging generation of culturally creative Christians. For ten years he was a campus minister with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Harvard University. He studied classics at Cornell University and received an M.Div. summa cum laude from Boston University School of Theology. A classically trained musician who draws on pop, folk, rock, jazz, and gospel, he has led musical worship for congregations of 5 to 20,000.

Should We Play God?

Andy Crouch discusses human flourishing and authority at UMich

Andy Crouch: Interview

Andy Crouch: Image Making Part 1

Playing God

2014 Outreach Magazine Resource of the Year ("Also Recommended," Leadership) ForeWord 2013 Book of the Year Award Finalist (Adult Nonfiction, Religion) Power corrupts—as we've seen time and time again. People too often abuse their power and play god in the lives of others. Shady politicians, corrupt executives and ego-filled media stars have made us suspicious of those who wield influence and authority. They too often breed injustice by participating in what the Bible calls idolatry. Yet power is also the means by which we bring life, create possibilities, offer hope and make human flourishing possible. This is "playing god" as it is meant to be. If we are to do God's work—fight injustice, bring peace, create beauty and allow the image of God to thrive in those around us—how are we to do these things if not by power? With his trademark clear-headed analysis, Andy Crouch unpacks the dynamics of power that either can make human flourishing possible or can destroy the image of God in people. While the effects of power are often very evident, he uncovers why power is frequently hidden. He considers not just its personal side but the important ways power develops and resides in institutions. Throughout Crouch offers fresh insights from key biblical passages, demonstrating how Scripture calls us to discipline our power. Wielding power need not distort us or others, but instead can be stewarded well. An essential book for all who would influence their world for the good.

Culture Making

2009 Christianity Today Book Award winner! Named one of Publishers Weekly's best books of 2008 (religion category) It is not enough to condemn culture. Nor is it sufficient merely to critique culture or to copy culture. Most of the time, we just consume culture. But the only way to change culture is to create culture. Andy Crouch unleashes a stirring manifesto calling Christians to be culture makers. For too long, Christians have had an insufficient view of culture and have waged misguided "culture wars." But we must reclaim the cultural mandate to be the creative cultivators that God designed us to be. Culture is what we make of the world, both in creating cultural artifacts as well as in making sense of the world around us. By making chairs and omelets, languages and laws, we participate in the good work of culture making. Crouch unpacks the complexities of how culture works and gives us tools for cultivating and creating culture. He navigates the dynamics of cultural change and probes the role and efficacy of our various cultural gestures and postures. Keen biblical exposition demonstrates that creating culture is central to the whole scriptural narrative, the ministry of Jesus and the call to the church. He guards against naive assumptions about "changing the world," but points us to hopeful examples from church history and contemporary society of how culture is made and shaped. Ultimately, our culture making is done in partnership with God's own making and transforming of culture. A model of his premise, this landmark book is sure to be a rallying cry for a new generation of culturally creative Christians. Discover your calling and join the culture makers.

Becoming and Being "Points of Light" -

Themes of Flourishing and Redemption in Broken Places

This is Our City

The Problem of Faith and Religion in Christianity

Introductory Comments

Adam Hamilton is yet another skeptical voice adding his own thoughts and commentary to interpreting the Bible generously for the 21st century even as we have here at Relevancy22. One that is as heartfelt as our own arguments for the same as we have toiled these past many years for a more progressive reading of Scripture that is more open, flexible, nuanced, and mature (cf. sidebars re "an open faith and open theology").

One that is based more upon a "anthropological reading" of the Bible than an "inerrant reading" of the Bible. A reading that is (i) not literal but historically contextual. (ii) One utilizing a literary, or genre-based, narrative reading rather than a flat reading across all poems, songs, psalms, hymns, legends, and stories, as it misses the multiple layers of meaning hidden within the complexity of its texts. And one (iii) more fully cognizant of the redemptive paucity of earlier civilization's interpretive acts claiming God's holy will for their own unholy acts of horrendous violence and cruelty, merciless barbarism and oppression. Acts met without mercy or forgiveness. Acts that were more human than godly when placed alongside the redemptive light of Jesus' interpretation of the Bible. An interpretation that erred in all doctrines and mindsets towards the greater love and mercy of the holy Creator-God become man's Redeemer by His Incarnate fellowship with earth and humanity.

For it was Jesus Himself who redefined all of God's Word through God's grace and humility. That the highest and best reading - or interpretation of the Bible - was to be read through God's grace rather than one with sword in hand. (This would include many of the church's present day doctrines of soteriology and eschatology as it marches along with its war-like imagery and assurance of dogma.) However, against this script many Christians have become more attuned to the "Jesus-attitude" of Scripture and are now asking themselves "What Would Jesus Do?" in all matters of life and will. Wishing to reframe God's missional tasks not in the terms of "religious conqueror" but in terms of "faithful suffering servant". That to love as God loves is to question our own ready interpretations of the Bible that are used to proclaim God's holy wrath and anger in mindful acts of inequality and discrimination through national policies, church polities, business practices, and personal conducts.

Foolishly claiming God's name in defense of His Word but acting out our own anger and wrath towards all those unlike ourselves in culture, race, and view. Let us not be so foolish as to claim "divine right of revelation" for what is rightfully creaturely sin, hate, and injustice. For a truer love, a truer justice, a truer forgiveness will cost us something. Something that we only can give up, sacrifice, offer, concede, or submit to. This then is when we become weak by God's own example through Jesus His Son who became the more empowered by the Holy Spirit for the greater extent of divine witness and salvation. It was not proffered by war and dominion, enslavement and oppression, but by the mightier reach of love and grace as displayed in the fuller weakness God's enlightening reach to those beyond humanities many uncrossable boundary lands.

As such, it must be God's mercy and forgiveness that must be the driving interpreters to His holy Word should we claim that we preach it, live it, and share it. That it is God's divine weakness as opposed to His divine power that is most attractive to Jesus' gospel message today. A message that can travel across all the shut minds and closed hearts of troubled men and women wanting more and not knowing what their spirits crave most and deepest and truest. For it was in God's weakness that Jesus became the most empowered by the Holy Spirit. That it was Jesus' resolute determination to throw off the shackles of an ungracious Jewish gospel in His day as it sought divine uplift and protection from Rome and all foreign gospels and yet denied Jesus' rightness of humanitarian mission towards those hated and despised within this same Jewish society. A society that would not admit outreach to the harlot, the tax collector, the slave, the Samaritan, nor Gentile, nor any other who lacked societal status or legal recourse to civil justice and equality under Jewish law.

And for this more generous interpretation of God's Word, Jesus was crucified at the hands of sinful man and fearful religious temple to be laid upon a cruel cross whereby He might there renounce in agony His vision of God's greater love before He died. A vision and decree that would unbind man from his shameful laws. His bigoted customs. His oppressive traditions and unequalled treatment of the unempowered of society. It was for this vision that Jesus suffered and died. And it is for this vision that the church must again reclaim God's holy Word through a more generous interpretation of its own gospel-doctrines urging discrimination and war-like temperaments towards the "unrighteous of the land." It is a redemption that must affect whole societies and no longer simply convicted men and women. It must be a redemption that unshackles the binding chains of men's reading of God Word of wrath for the greater release of God's mightier Word of love to all men and women everywhere about the church's missional fields. At the last, the easier doctrine is the one of fear and intolerance. A doctrine that would undo any who are unlike ourselves. But the harder doctrine is that of Jesus' faith and hope in a mankind lost and alone. A doctrine that would reach past its own barriers and see again the image of God burned into the image of disbelieving mankind.

As such, a more proper biblical reading of God's Word is less about a "literal reading of the Bible" and more about a 'literally-minded people" that would affect this kind of opinion upon its pages. Less about "Thus God says" and more about "Thus say we" in our socio-cultural contexts far, far, far removed from the ancient cultures and mindsets found upon the biblical page. It is less about speaking the "right doctrines and dogmas" of the church with its "strict biblical interpretations" built from its many centuries of circular reasonings - and iron-clad hermeneutics. Than about our own "stricter preferences" for a kind of biblical interpretation supporting our own religious arguments, acumens, agendas, and opinions, about what we think morality and ethics should be if we were to write the Bible and come to earth to judge all of mankind by our own standards of divine wrath and fie of judgment.

At the last, when reading the Bible from a naive, simplistic, and largely, prejudicial mindset, the Bible becomes what WE think (or want) God to say or do, and not what GOD is actually saying and doing. Just as there was a great amount of confusion in colonial times about the humanitarian validity of human trafficking and slavery because of the many verses found in the Bible thought to be about the advocacy of its practice. So too has there been great confusion in these present times about the equality of women, same-sex unions, the consumption of ecology, or the rightness of conservative agenda in national policy and religion. The conservative Christian mindset has become pointedly obtuse in refusing any other mindful interpretations of these subjects other than the one that prejudices this reading of it in THEIR Bible. As such, we have affectively created our own pretexts and conclusions of God's Word while refusing the divine light of God's illuminating love to inspire its revelation to our senses and obedience to our heart. As such, the Word of God becomes the whipping boy of Christian religion rather than the illuminating orifices of God to the questioning faithful of the land willing to submit to its more generous rule.

Against such black-and-white prostrations claiming a "rightness" of interpreting the Bible that advocates religious opinion over a truer Christian faith, let us pursue a more progressive Christian reading of the Bible while rejecting many of the accompanying fallacies by its religious readership. A vocal majority who would disregard (or assuage) historical and literary context to their own ends. Who would naively employ a present day a/biblical cultural ethic that was no less employed by the ancients in their day, time, and place, to affect their worldly visions and religious opinions. Who misspeak God's word with ready interpretations preferencing personal likes and dislikes, mindsets and societal mores ("folkways of central importance accepted without question, and emboding, the fundamental moral views of a group"). To this type of reading method let us say "Anathema" and pray  at once for God's divine forgiveness and mercy. And there then seek for His divine love and servant-minded weakness to be our only interpretive guides over all acts of human foible and tenacity that would preclude its golden script. This then would be more the right and good thing to do. Something that Jesus would do.

R.E. Slater

May 2, 2014

*If I were to write a follow-up rejoinder to the above article I would like to discuss "faith and uncertainty." For it seems more appropriate to cast some doubt on our plethora of interpretations while learning to hold in tension a balance of doctrine and theology about God and His holy will. However, there have been previous articles written of this topic and one need only to peruse the sidebars under "faith." Thank you again for your prayerful spirit and diligence in righteousness. - res

Jesus, the Servant of God

ESV links

Acts 3:13

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.Acts 3:12-14 (in Context) Acts 3 (Whole Chapter)

Romans 1:1

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—Romans 1:1-3 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)

Philippians 1:1

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with theoverseers and deacons:Philippians 1:1-3 (in Context) Philippians 1 (Whole Chapter) 

Colossians 4:12

Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured.Colossians 4:11-13 (in Context) Colossians 4 (Whole Chapter)

Titus 1:1

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge ofthe truth that leads to godliness—Titus 1:1-3 (in Context) Titus 1 (Whole Chapter)

James 1:1

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.James 1:1-3 (in Context) James 1 (Whole Chapter)

2 Peter 1:1

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:2 Peter 1:1-3 (in Context) 2 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter)

Jude 1:1

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God theFather and kept for Jesus Christ:Jude 1:1-3 (in Context) Jude 1 (Whole Chapter) 

Revelation 19:10

At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”Revelation 19:9-11 (in Context) Revelation 19 (Whole Chapter) 

* * * * * * * * * * *

The pastor of the largest United Methodist congregation in America is sparking intense
debate with his provocative new take on the Bible. – Image courtesy of Adam Hamilton

Mega-church pastor Adam Hamilton's

Scandalous take on Scripture

/http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/05/01/adam-hamilton-offers-scandalous-take-on-scripture

by Jonathan Merritt
May 1, 2014

As pastor of [the] Church of the Resurrection, Adam Hamilton has the honor of leading the largest United Methodist congregation in the United States. More than 8,600 attend services each week, and the Kansas congregation is considered by many to be America’s most influential mainline Protestant church. But with the release of his provocative new book, “Making Sense of the Bible: Rediscovering the Power of Scripture Today,” Hamilton is becoming known as someone who is challenging traditional understandings the Bible.

Here we discuss the message of his book and how he navigates the most difficult and debated passages.

---

RNS: You believe the Bible is divinely “inspired.” Can you explain what you mean exactly?

AH: The biblical authors were people like us. Christians do not hold, as Muslims do, that our holy book was dictated by God. The biblical authors wrote in particular times, for particular audiences, out of a particular context. Part of rightly interpreting Scripture is reading it in the light of what we can know about its historical and cultural context, the author’s purposes in writing and knowing something about the people they were writing to.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul writes, “All Scripture is inspired by God…” Christians often assume they know what this means, but Paul seems to have created the word “inspired.” It does not appear in the Greek language before this and is used nowhere else in the Bible. It literally means “God-breathed” but Paul doesn’t go on to explain precisely what he means. It is a metaphor, and metaphors are not precise. Push them too far and they break down.

When I think of inspired, I think of God-influenced. This leaves open a variety of ways in which the biblical authors were influenced by God.

---

RNS: A lot of critics reject the Bible because of the violence in the Old Testament. What say you?

AH: My premise is that the Bible is the words of people who were influenced by God, and yet who were also shaped by the times in which they lived. The violence attributed to God in the Bible is a serious issue that Christians must address. It is inconsistent with the character of God described in many places in the Old Testament, and certainly inconsistent with the Word of God revealed in Jesus Christ who calls his followers to love their enemies.

In the Hebrew Bible we find God putting to death 70,000 Israelites to punish David for taking a census. We have God commanding Joshua to slaughter every man woman and child in 31 entire kingdoms in the Canaan as a kind of offering to God. This is what, today, we would call genocide. God commands priests to burn their daughters alive if they become prostitutes. I cannot imagine God calling me to burn one of my children alive, regardless of what they had done. Other ancient near eastern people believed their gods also called them to slaughter entire cities as an offering to their gods, so this seems to have been a common cultural understanding about the relationship between war and the gods.

---

RNS: Theologian J.P. Moreland once argued that among evangelicals, “There is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ.” What do you think about his assertion?

AH: I don’t know the context of Moreland’s quote, but it sounds much like what I’m saying in my book. An exaggerated or inaccurate view of Scripture is not a high view of Scripture, it is just a wrong view of Scripture.

• A high view of Scripture takes the Bible seriously, while also taking its historical context and the humanity of its authors seriously.

• A high view of Scripture is held by those who actually read Scripture, seek to understand why the human authors wrote what they did, and how they convey God’s timeless will for us today.

• A high view of Scripture includes not only reading the Bible, but seeking to live its timeless messages, which are discerned in the light of Jesus Christ, who is the definitive Word of God.

---

RNS: I suspect your chapter on homosexuality will rankle a few feathers, particularly among conservatives. Can you summarize your position and why you believe it is a scriptural one?

AH: I offer two different arguments regarding homosexuality in my book.

In the first, I suggest that what Moses and Paul were addressing in their teachings on same-sex intimacy was very different from two human beings entering into a covenant relationship of mutual love.

In the entire Old Testament we find only two expressions of same-sex intimacy: Gang rape and pagan temple prostitution. This is not at all synonymous with two people entering into a lifelong covenant relationship with one another.

In the New Testament, Paul, trained in rabbinic law, seems to draw upon all of these ideas in his words about same-sex intimacy in Romans where he uses the Old Testament terms of clean and unclean and where he speaks of same-sex intimacy in connection with idolatry.

But the second argument I make is that the Bible is complex and, while influenced by God, it is not dictated by God. It reflects the humanity of the biblical authors and the times in which they lived. We’ve seen this in its teaching on slavery, on violence, on the status and role of women, and several other topics.

Thus, I suggest, it is possible to be a faithful Christian who loves God and loves the scriptures and at the same time to believe that the handful of verses on same-sex intimacy are like the hundreds of passages accepting and regulating slavery or other practices we today believe do not express the heart and character of God.

---

RNS: You say that for those who disagree on homosexuality, the issue is not Biblical authority, but Biblical interpretation. Explain this.

AH: Most conservatives, moderate evangelicals, and progressives, I know believe that the church is to love gay and lesbian people. And nearly all agree, at core the issue is not homosexuality but the Bible. 

God did not rewrite, edit or send down from heaven a new Bible that clarified that God was against slavery. There are over 200 verses allowing and regulating the practice in the Bible. Yet somehow Christians were able to look at those verses and ultimately conclude they did not reflect God’s will for humankind despite verses directly attributed to God that allowed for owning, selling and even beating slaves.

Conservatives often suggest homosexuality is an issue of biblical authority. I believe the Bible has authority in my life and for the church and, in the words of II Timothy 3:16, it is, “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” But I also believe that the five passages that speak to some form of same-sex intimacy do not describe God’s timeless will for humanity any more than the passages on violence, or slavery, or women describe God’s timeless will. The issue is not authority, it is our assumptions about the Bible and the way we interpret it.

---

RNS: What do you say to those who would accuse you of just rehashing the arguments of 20th century theological liberalism? What is new here?

AH: My book is less about rehashing old arguments, than offering an accessible way of understanding both the Bible’s divine inspiration and its humanity. I share the kind of things any seminary student in a mainline or moderate evangelical seminary would learn in their first year, but most lay people may not be aware of. Often both laity and clergy speak of the Bible in terms that are not ultimately helpful in making sense of its difficult passages, and can actually lead to misunderstanding the Bible.

---

RNS: Your book might be characterized as provocative or progressive. Do you think it is also hopeful?

AH: Yes. I wrote the book for young adults who have been turned away from faith by things they’ve read in the Bible. I wrote it to help Christians who are increasingly confronted by vocal atheists who love to focus on the Bible’s more difficult passages. And I wrote it for people who are interested in reading the Bible and understanding its message. That is a message of great hope.

- J.M.

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

BOOK REVIEW

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

Amazon Link

Denominations from evangelical to mainline continue to experience deep divisions over universal social issues. The underlying debate isn’t about a particular social issue, but instead it is about how we understand the nature of scripture and how we should interpret it. The world’s bestselling, most-read, and most-loved book is also one of the most confusing. In Making Sense of the Bible, Adam Hamilton, one of the country’s leading pastors and Christian authors, addresses the hot-button issues that plague the church and cultural debate, and answers many of the questions frequently asked by Christians and non-Christians alike.

• Did God really command Moses to put gay people to death?
• Did Jesus really teach that everyone who is not a Christian will be assigned to hell?
• Why would Paul command women to “keep silent in the church?”
• Were Adam and Eve real people?
• Is the book of Revelation really about the end times?
• Who decided which books made it into the scriptures and why?
• Is the Bible ever wrong?

In approachable and inviting language, Hamilton addresses these often misunderstood biblical themes leading readers to a deeper appreciation of the Bible so that we might hear God speak through it and find its words to be life-changing and life-giving.