flying.farther

N.T. Wright was on the Colbert Report last night. The interview wasn’t amazing, but it was certainly better than, say, that atrocious Anne Lamott interview. Still it was worth a watch.

I recently made quite a long drive and thankfully I had my iPod hooked into my car. My music of choice? Well, I did listen to some music, but most of the time I listened to lectures by N.T. Wright, Martin Luther King Jr. (”A Time to Break Silence”), and other assorted lectures. So for any of you out there looking at long drives this summer, or just for general listening, here are a bunch of free audio lectures to download. Never should our nerdery end when school ends for the summer!

Also, I’ll be doing quite a bit more driving and flying this summer, so if anyone else has some good lectures to download, I’d love to hear about them.

I just opened the latest Newsweek issue to find an article interviewing N. T. Wright. Needless to say, I was a bit surprised. Happily surprised, but surprised, particularly because earlier in the magazine, it had this to say of Dr. Jeremiah Wright, “Talks to St. Moyers, seems reasonable if unrepentant. Now go away.”

Anyways, here is a bit of what is said about N. T. Wright’s latest book, Surprised by Hope:

It should come as no surprise that N. T. Wright believes that the resurrection really happened. As the Anglican bishop of Durham, a commitment to the idea of a risen Jesus would seem to be part of the job description. Among many Western Christians, however, the word “resurrection” means something else: a supernatural event, a spiritual ascent, a poetic metaphor. In his new book “Surprised by Hope,” Wright explains why he believes in a material resurrection—as well as how that belief should inform a Christian life. He spoke with Jon Meacham and Lisa Miller.

NEWSWEEK: When you talk about the resurrection, are you telling people something they haven’t heard before?

N. T. Wright: Usually, yes. People have been told so often that resurrection is just a metaphor, and means Jesus died and was glorified—in other words, he went to heaven, whatever that means. And they’ve never realized that the word resurrection simply didn’t mean that. If people [in the first century] had wanted to say he died and went to heaven, they had perfectly good ways of saying that.

Are people receptive to this message?
Yes and no. I think people are fascinated, but then the imaginative leap required is so huge that for many people it’s like describing life on Mars: “Well, that may be fine, I may believe you in theory, but I don’t think I’m ever going there myself.”

What does the resurrected body look like?
Obviously, we don’t know. But it will be probably much, much more like our present bodies than we dare to imagine. The analogy that I use is this: if you are with somebody who is very sick, you say, “Poor old so-and-so, he’s just a shadow of his former self.” He’s still recognizable as the same person. Who we are at the moment is just a shadow of our future selves. There’s a real you, a real me, which will one day be there and we’ll say, “My goodness, you’re looking well.” There’s a sense of “like but more than.”

How do you reconcile your orthodox theology with your progressive politics?
The task of government in the present is to anticipate the eventual sorting out of all things, and the task of the church in the present is to remind governments that that is their job. The resurrection gives you a sense of what God wants to do for the whole world, and it gives the church the courage to say, “God’s new world has actually begun already.” The church can then say to the powers that be, whether it’s George W. Bush or Gordon Brown or the United Nations, “We are urging you to do justice, and we’re going to hold your feet to the fire and go on reminding you when you’re getting it wrong and congratulating you when you’re getting it right.”

I love the concept of a blog for the flexibility it allows - discussion, editing, revision, more discussion and, best of all, creative citation. The following is, well, an orderly montage of sorts that addresses far more than the mere row over sharia law, it also engages the deeper under currents that were trying to be addressed, like multiple community identities concerning state and faith citizenship, before the media sidetracked the discussion.

First, an audio interview of Rowan Williams on youtube done in very simple language that should dispel some of the common misconceptions surrounding the recent row:

Second, part of Williams’ address at the recent general synod:

Third, N.T. Wright in his usual fantastic form on the row and the deeper issues at hand (and how it applies to those of us who are Americans):

And last, a link to The Wardman Wire that does more than catalog the sensationalism by the media, it shows that part of the sensationalism functioned as a preemptive PR campaign against Williams.

Note: this post, like so many others, is the product of a class assignment, however, that is not to say I have not been thinking about this sort of thing on my own for quite sometime. There are clearly some holes within the post (like I say nothing about Barth and Word), but I think this begins to get to where I am currently at. Keep in mind that this also had to meet some professor specified requirements and although I have stripped away some unneccessary text for the internet, the form is still similar to what I turned in - when you wonder why I am actually looking at three views more indepth, it is because the prof wanted that. Anyways, enough talk, here are some thoughts on hermeneutics.

My Social Location and the Beginning of My Hermeneutic

In terms of social categories, I am the oppressor – Caucasian, male, and affluent. I am white and my genealogical makeup is European; it is German, Scottish, Irish, English, French Canadian and even has a hint of Icelandic red. Although my extended family has been in the North American continent for just over a century, it would seem that we have been here for longer – not because they come from old money (which they do not), instead there is a silence about the past and a sense of ownership and entitlement in the present that creates an atmosphere where the success of the past thirty years seems to re-create our entire story in terms of work and wealth. Granted there has been profound tragedy, separation between family members, and lower class status (during my parents’ childhood), however, that only serves to further the narcissism, rather than calling into question the truth of the family’s perception or bring people closer together. I come from a self-blinding family of white riches earned through the American dream and the power of oil.

Ironically, for all the money, hard work and conservative evangelical roots, my family is disconnected to say the least, and when there are relationships, they are generally warped through the lenses of patriotism, fear, imperialism, pain, wealth, and anger. I will say, that as they age, my family has developed and matured as persons (and maybe a cohesive family) in many ways, however, in the categories that Union cares about (mainly systemic oppression), my family is the quintessential oppressor – ignorant to their privilege and the pain of others.

As a Christian I have begun to react to what I see as wrong within my family and the church. I started with a problem that I saw in the evangelical church – that it lacks cohesion and relationality. Instead of brothers and sisters gathering for encouragement and support for themselves and those in the surrounding community, the church in my eyes seemed like a poorly done academic lecture with the inclusion of a popular sub-culture that had no intention of addressing the holistic needs of people. I saw to be the root of the problem to be the presupposition of individualism over community instead of the relational nature of the church acting like the body of Christ. My struggle for envisioning a right community led me towards kingdom theology – that is, the body of Christ enacting now the values of the suffering Christological and eschatological kingdom.

The church I was involved with (during my undergrad at a Bible College) was a group of believers that lived out the Christian call of prayer, preaching, and upbuilding and correction.1 I have never been so encouraged or supported in my life. I have never seen so few people meet the needs of so many people around them within the community, be it the Christian or secular communities. It is with this theology and experience that I begin my interpretations of the text.

Other Considerations – Some of My Basic Assumptions

First and foremost, we deal with a text and without access to the actual data that formed the text. Techniques of pre-rhetorical form are interesting and help one understand that the text was indeed fashioned in its own way by humans, how the text was influenced before it was written down, and as a possible indication as to the structure of the current text. Nevertheless, twenty-first century academics do not have access to the oral tradition, nor do we have access to “Q”, among other texts that would have helped form the text we have now. Method without the data itself seems a tenuous situation of theories based only on what can be dug up and thus I begin with the text that, for good or ill, Christians call Holy Scripture.

The Nature of the Text
We primarily deal with text that we find, to in some way, call scripture. The word scripture means that the text “is ‘authority’ for the common life of the Christian community.”2 And in as much scripture is authoritative for the community, “these texts are the church’s scripture”, and so this text is formative for the community, for the church – the community of faith.3 On another note, the use of the word scripture denotes “some kind of ‘wholeness” or canon.4 Thus, to call the biblical text scripture, is to say that the Bible is in some form an authoritative canon for the life of the community of faith.

As the Bible is a text, it is inherently genre specific, and best understood as a text with multiple genres – ranging from narrative, to poetic, to letter/epistle. Thus, whether reading or analyzing, it is vital to understand what genre the passage lies within; however, genre is a broad term that indicates a more detailed idea of structure like: introductions and closings, narration, story order, poetic devices (i.e. inclusio, repetition, chiasm, etc.), argumentative examples, word choice, how Paul is not writing a systematic theology and so forth. Simply put, analysis of the text as a text is incredibly important for me and, from what I can determine, is a rich tradition within the hermeneutical world and has produced: structuralism, post-structuralism, narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, and canonical criticism to name a few.

Author, Text and Audience
Interestingly, textual criticism has run into rough waters with the advent of deconstructionism advocated by Jacques Derrida.5 Although there is a perceived demise of platonic language theory, I have found a haven within Speech-Act language theory – a theory that asserts both the author and the audience in relation to meaning are problematic, but the text does maintain meaning. This is to say that the author is inaccessible, but also on the other hand, the audience is not free to create meaning without the voice of the text; instead, the text itself retains meaning and is able to communicate meaning through clues like structure.

Elements of Interpretive Methodology from Class

Me in Relationship to Theories Presented in Class:
A great deal of the interpretive methodologies introduced, while not particularly new to me, were generally attractive to me. On the theme of liberation, I found the post-colonial, liberationist and (for lack of a better term) political-imperial criticism to be fairly interesting, if not convincing. A few summers ago I was listening to a number of recorded N. T. Wright lectures and that probably was the first time I saw the “Lord’s prayer” in a new light – a liberative light – that envisioned and cried out for the heavenly kingdom breaking into the present and against the imperial and false powers, which in that day was Rome. Even I, who am probably more on the conservative side at Union, has found a liberative reading of the Bible from a conservative, Anglican bishop. Also, I think in this context of America’s rule, I can move towards privileging a liberative reading of the Bible while still holding to my current core methodology; I see no reason why liberative readings (advocacy criticism) cannot join and mix with my current interpretive method and be more informative and compelling than a conservative, white, male, Anglican bishop. The result of the mixing would be an even richer and productive methodology for answering the true problems of the current world.

As one can probably tell, I am whole-heartedly for a communitarian hermeneutic and that it is not simply scripture alone, but also the local and universal community of faith that reads and interprets the text together. As far as redactionists, I appreciate the personal treatment given to each section of the text, be it story or sayings, however, redactionists can tend to lose the structure when they look too individually; they can lose the forest for the tree. Thus I prefer the canonical criticism approach that maintains that there is a theological/thematic center to each book and attempts to find the same for the entire Bible. As far as psycho-analytic criticism goes, I am hesitant when they attempt to characterize the author whom I do not think we can know, although I suppose an analysis of the tendencies in the text would prove interesting and likewise for the lens that the audience brings to the text. It is vital in my opinion to scrutinize the assumptions that the audience brings to the text; assumptions govern the types of questions the audience will ask and thus dictate the answers and, in the end, the theology supposedly derived from the text.

Three Theories from Class in Conversation with My Methodology:

Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (Feminist)
A few years ago I would have been alarmed by feminist hermeneutics, for I was just coming from a house that had a mother who read Paul’s subordination to mean that a wife ought to submit to the husband in a conservative fashion (and she still does). Today my stance is much different, though I am still relatively new to it. At first glance I am worried by looking at a Canon within the Canon – my knee jerk reaction is that one book ought not to be subordinated to another book for no book is a second class citizen – however, I quickly realized that there is always a Canon within the Canon.6 With texts that were written in another context, and not always to us who is an audience 2,000 years later, we naturally drop all sorts of sayings and notions, no matter how literal one might pride themselves in being.

On this basis I have begun to make my peace with the hermeneutic of suspicion. When I came to Union, the view about the text seemed to say the Bible was helpful, but quickly the text turned to something largely distrusted, negative and harmful. It seemed as if the book in front of me transformed into a monster that was grabbing for my throat; I finally saw how truly the Bible could be oppressive. I called myself an egalitarian at Bible college and chided the hierarchical John Piper and Wayne Grudemn fans, but I had yet to really see the frustration from oppression – the women at the school either accepted hierarchy or rarely let out their frustration it seemed (or perhaps I just missed it). It is odd how suppression, in the guise of obedience, eliminates the reality of experience.

First and foremost I think we ought to take Paul seriously, and when we do so, we might encounter patriarchy, but we also encounter a Paul who seems to lead us towards a direction of subversion. It seems to me that Paul might have told people to stay in their place in the secular world (so as to be Christ), but he also told those whom the people are submitting to, to be submitters also. I do not think it a fluke that within the early church both women and slaves had a space to be human and free because the structures of the world were turned upside down. Paul could have been a chauvinist, or the text seems to reflect the patriarchal time in which it was written, and we should take those negatives seriously to see the humanity in the writings,7 but we should also notice that sometimes in the same breath the text moves towards freedom. Perhaps seeing a flawed text moving towards the suffering and risen eschatological kingdom is the best thing ever for those 2,000 years later who are doing the same thing within the same community of faith.

Vincent L. Wimbush (”Darkly”)
Similar to feminist criticism, the African American hermeneutic that speaks about the African American experience and church approaches the text with a heremeneutic of suspicion; however, Wimbush is not speaking about gender, but race. Wimbush seeks to show theology the African American lens so to break white theologians out of their incorrectly narrow theology – a theology that sees only the white person, for it envisions a white Jesus.8 This idea is certainly nothing new after taking Prof. Cone’s systematic class last semester, nevertheless it is still powerful every time it is used for theology still seems to exist to some degree within whiteness.

However I wonder what happens when one enters into the church – the community of faith. Does this change how we see race or gender? Certainly oppression is not sanctioned, however, what happens once within the community? I have recently encountered an essay by J. Kameron Carter of Duke Divinity School titled “Christology, or Redeeming Whiteness: A Response to James Perkinson’s Appropriation of Black Theology.”9 Certainly there is the agreement to “call the white church to a deeper faithfulness to its Lord” and that Lord’s power instead of the power of whiteness; however, liturgy, and in particular baptism, is then what?10 Carter instead understands baptism as “induction into a different mode of being in the world, one that surpasses the mode of being whose nodal points are hegemonic and counterhegemonic.”11 Best understood, the induction into the community through baptism “involves handing oneself over to God in Christ so as to receive oneself back as a gift… [and thus] to receive Christ himself” on Christ’s terms and “mission” which moves from Martin Buber’s and James Cone’s use of I-Thou and into a political body in which exists a “different way of being.”12 I bring Carter’s essay up because itself has come up in discussions I have had with others on the topic of Black Liberation theology and this essay is already in dialogue with Cone inside my head, although it is unresolved. This is the question that chases after me now, now that I have been sensitized toward racism in theology.

Historical-Critical
Historical-criticism is something I appreciate, but am largely skeptical of. I disagree with the fundamental precept that we will actually know the author of the text.13 The author to Job is indeterminable, much less when the text was written, and while many books within the New Testament are certainly closer to our time than Job, the historical author seems still beyond our reach because of Derrida and my own experience of history. One of my majors in undergrad was a history major and I wrote a thesis that involved both primary and secondary sources around a rather unknown but controversial topic.14 Through my experience I discovered the utter reliance a historian has the texts and the baggage that comes with the texts, and I began to wonder how far history can inform humanity – certainly no more than concretely than, “it was probably like this from what we can determine at this time.” Ironically, history can only speak to what it has dug up and analyzed at that time, rather than stating for once what life was like; the past is always under construction and revision.

Another concern for me is those who use history, but do not have the adequate background. For instance, I have seen, in both the pulpit and the class room, the speaker who gives too much weight to one theory, without mentioning the other theories that are equally viable, and thus the speaker incorrectly privileges the theory to look like fact – I have seen Christians do terrible history, committing moves that the historical community would laugh at, and I want to avoid the disinformation and embarrassment. Likewise, I also want to avoid elevating the privileged theory to canonical status (one might call this midrashing with history), despite how unpopular it might be here at Union. We are Christians who have a text we call scripture and we ought to deal with it as such.

I have also lately become aware of a possible problem concerning the reliance on history for theology through Jürgen Moltmann’s chapter on the nature of history in his book Theology of Hope.15 His critique about history as a philosophy of crisis seems insightful concerning many schools of history. While Moltmann’s argument may or may not have aged well and has been adequately responded to, I am still concerned that the presumptions by current philosophical history (though at least excluding the Marxist historians) can, without examination, shape theology towards the French revolution instead of the cross and resurrection.

Despite all the negativity and urge to separate the categories of theology and history, there is within me a sympathy for history and certainly a few concessions. Without the study of the past, there would be no text – Greek would be gibberish. Even for the literary person who wants to avoid historical-criticism because of the language theory critique, the translation of a text is indebted to the study of languages; without an understanding of word meaning amongst various languages of the time like Syriac and Coptic, Greek would be indecipherable.

Also, I find interesting what history does have to say. I think I have the background to envision what history is actually saying (which is always less than we think) and therefore determining what is helpful that history claims. However, I still handle history as if it is apocrypha (though I still handle it) insomuch that it is outside of the canon, because it is, and therefore also outside of the community of faith’s interpretation.

_______________
1. This church, The Church of the Servant King, is part of the “New Monastic Movement” and is committed to the church as community. They have also been largely informed by recent ecclesial writings, particularly Stanley Hauewas. The Hauerwas Reader, edited by John Berkman and Michael Carwright (Durham: Duke University, 2002), 384-385. A list of what the church is and does: charity/hospitality; valuing both the married and single equally; fiscal responsibility and leveraging of resources for the needs of people; living simply; racially diverse; inclusion of all ages; resisting the Kingdom of Evil; and the list goes on.

2. The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology by David H. Kelsey (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975) 89.

3. Ibid., 89.

4. Ibid., 89.

5. Is There A Meaning In this Text? by Kevin Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

6. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 14.

7. Ibid., 18.

8. “Reading Darkness, Reading Scriptures” in African Americans and The Bible: Sacred Texts and Social Textures by Vincent L. Wimbush (New York: Continuum), 8-9.

9. “Christology, or Redeeming Whiteness: A Response to James Perkinson’s Appropriation of Black Theology” by J. Kameron Carter, Theology Today, 60, number 4, January 2004.

10. Ibid., 526.

11. Ibid., 537.

12. Ibid., 538.

13. An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 35.

14. Titled: “Truth, Dare, and Death: Epistemological Conflict Between Quakers and Puritans in Boston, Massachusetts from 1656-1661.”

15. Theology of Hope by Jürgen Moltmann (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 261. Although, perhaps I would do well to review one of the books for my Historiography class, History in Crisis? by Norman J. Wilson. This paragraph is meant to speak to a concern and question that has recently popped up within the last week in relation to other classes, rather than to give an answer.

This is the first of three reposts from myspace.

Part 1

This post has been percolating inside me for a long time. Again this was written for ethics class. The entire paper is a response to a civil disobedience chapter, but I’ve only really posted the part I’ve been thinking about for so long - the church, the nation state. However, at the end, because of my take on the church, I do assert my position on civil disobedience.

The History and Nature of the Modern Nation-State

The nation-state as recognized today finds its roots in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe. William Cavanaugh, in Theopolitical Imagination, rightly asserts a view of government that is far different than the common stereotype. The centralized nation-state did not evolve out of necessity to halt the wars of religion, as if a referee between feuding Protestants and Catholics. Rather, the centralized government went beyond inept feudal lords and petty aristocracies and came into its own as an alternate power to religious rule. Nations began to retain the ultimate allegiance instead of religious affiliations; national governments became power structures in and of themselves vying for their subjects primary loyalty.

Clearly there was conflict between the religious powers and political leaders (i.e. Henry II and the Roman Catholic Church through Archbishop Thomas Becket) before the usurpation by political structures; however, governments during the post-reformation age won the battle for control. This is all to say, the governments now are far different from past forms (particularly the feudal system). Nations are in direct contrast to the body of Christ and require a loyalty (nationalism) above religious affiliation (i.e. JFK and his political maneuvering around the fear of subordinating the United States to papal authority).

Now, it is true there are similarities between the Roman government during the birth of Christianity and today. There was a total allegiance required by the emperor (to be viewed the son of a god among other thins, i.e. Julius Caesar was voted divine, thus giving his adopted heir Augustus the title son of god see the works of N.T. Wright), but for some legalized religious, like Judaism, some exemptions were made as long as the peace was kept. When Jesus claimed divine sonship, it is politically charged and in direct opposition to Roman authority (again, see the works of N.T. Wright). At the dawn of Christianity, the faith found itself in direct opposition to the greatest power in the world a centralized government that commanded supreme loyalty.

Today in America, nationalism and allegiance is assumed; to favor an organization that spans international boundaries over the powers of Washington D.C. is unpatriotic and seen by some as treason. I anticipate a critique that questions my assertion, that in fact, it is not as I say and I am at least seditious and ungrateful, if not traitorous. My response is this: America demands a patriotic allegiance that mirrors other forms of religious creeds and liturgy. Governments are power structures that demand much and in fact follow after religious belief systems, both in idea and action. For example, The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Wikipedia says this:
The Tomb Guards, the 3rd United States Infantry (The Old Guard), make personal sacrifices to have the honor of serving. They work on a team rotation of 24 hours on, 24 hours off, 24 on, 24 off, 24 on, and 96 hours off. An average guard takes 8 hours to prepare his uniform (which is solid wool–regardless of the time of year) for the next day’s work. In addition to preparing the uniform, guards also complete physical training, Tomb Guard training, cut their hair before the next work day, and shave twice per day. A special Army decoration, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Guard Identification Badge is authorized for permanent award to a Tomb Guard only after a period of nine months of duty as well as a passing a detailed test of 100 questions (from a pool of more than 300).

The first thing that came to my mind was the Hebraic Nazarite vow a promise to be solely Gods for a holy purpose and included rituals and promises (i.e. no cutting of the hair). In reality, the guards of the tomb answer to a promise, a promise that the website itself calls it a creed.

For my interaction with the government, in this case civil disobedience, I think to properly understand the relationship requires a right understanding of both parties. I choose explicitly the person of Christ, his work, and the church universal (the body of Christ) over a quasi-religious nationalism. It seems that many Christians might affirm Christ first, but seem to misunderstand the implications and ethics that Christianity demands. This is not to say I do not enjoy the perks or support America at times, but first and foremost for me is the supreme commandment to love God and others, all others all troops, social classes, ethnicities. The commandment includes extremes and enemies; in point of fact, both America and Al-Qaeda.

My view of civil disobedience is seen within this context; I disobey a structure that attempts to assert unwelcome, counter-Christian control. However, this is not to say that I am necessarily an anarchist, per se. The Bible clearly teaches an obedience to law and order (Romans 13), yet at the same time also portrays the people of God as ultimately loyal to God (i.e. Daniel 6, Acts 4, etc.). With this in mind, where the government diverges from Kingdom of God (of which the Church represents currently), so to I depart from the government.

The Kingdom of God has broken (Christs work), is breaking (the Church as the body of Christ), and will continue to break into this world (both ecclesially and eschatologically), culminating in the redemption of creation and the establishment of complete, divine rule. To merely object to evils vocally is impotent and does little to further the Kingdom; to speak against torture (an un-love of others) require speech and action to announce Christ and his Kingdom, though Christs ethic, to the world. Thus, the church protests compromising governments (i.e. acts of injustice) and reaps the consequences, to the point of dying like a lamb.

To state my view plainly: I resist through direct disobedience. I resist nonviolently. Fighting fire with fire is unacceptable; reacting to violence with violence is not love. Also, I resist communally. I do not resist through a national response, but through a church response (see William Cavanaughs Torture and Eucharist). I, myself individually, do not resist, but it is the body of Christ that together resists.

An explanatory note: the top portion of the post about Kingdom ethics might’ve been too academic in the vocabulary or lecture oriented for some to read. I got to talking with a friend of mine and conversationally lined it all out. So hopefully this will bring some more clarity for those who care to know.

Part 2

Me: im telling you, the modern nation state usurps the church (not necessarily moralistic “christianity,” but i mean the body of Christ, the church - kingdom ethics)

Him: maybe you should speak plain English

Me: im speaking plenty good english. here, read this and then well go from there. (as a side note, these two questions and my answers are from a recent exam for my Hebrews through Revelation class. They seemed a good enough place to start.)

1. What is the thematic center of James? Show how James pursues the themes in the letter. Explain the significance of these themes in light of the life setting of the readers and his teaching regarding trials in 1:1-25.

The thematic center asserted in the notes is as follows: be a doer of the Word this is the true religion of a mature, wise, obedient brother. Most explicitly stated, the thematic core centers on taming the tongue, assisting the orphans and widows, and remaining pure. (Other key themes are: testing of faith; wisdom/maturity; character of God; and poverty/wealth.)

The book of James is written to the diaspora (the scattered). While it might seem common to people today for the church to spread out, the mentality of today is 2,000 years separated and lacks an Old Testament focus. It seems that the audience was frightened and confused over the scattering, and in light of the Old Testament, they had a genuine concern. The Old Testament stressed that the identity of the people of God (in this case Israel) is entirely wrapped up in the land; to disobey resulted in removal from the land while obedience was rewarded with blessing towards a fruitful land. A scattering of the church and suffering trials, viewed from the Old Testament lens, is negative and implies punishment from disobedience. The author of James writes to correct the presupposition; under the new covenant, the follower is not identified through geography, but through ethic.

The writer uses three subjects to display the new ethic: control of the tongue; caring for the orphans and widows; and keeping oneself pure. While suffering the trials and scattering (these tests of faith), Christians can grow into maturity by responding wellstaying pure. Retaining purity is continuing to be a vibrant image of God to the world and the church. This purity can find two specific applications: controlling the deceitful tongue and caring for the needy of the needy (the orphans and widows). To follow this ethic is to stay a doer of the Word (true religion) and where life is found. No longer does life retain a component of geography, but rather, life is an ethic.

2. What is the central message of Revelation? Support this by interacting with its five major themes.

The book of Revelations central message is: encouragement and exhortation to the seven churches to hope and worship in the present based on a vision of the future that displays the glories of Gods character, His judgment and victory over evil, and the culmination of his eternal Kingdom, rooted in the work of the Lamb who was slain and is exalted both now and forever. The five major themes are: redemption; Gods wrath and judgment; Gods sovereignty; worship; and the culmination of Gods kingdom.

The seven churches either are suffering for Christ or have lost their way. For those who suffer, the Kingdom hope is a terrific thing and for those who have fallen, the book serves as a warning to return. One day soon, God will come back in a powerful and wrathful way. Christ, who is in control, will establish, in finality, the Kingdom.

Through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, the Kingdom is first introduced and now people may find themselves in the Book of Life. The sacrifice on the cross enables Christ to do the work that none can do (i.e. the only one who can open the scroll). God pours his wrath on the world, God demonstrates control and Christ returns to his bride the church, rescuing the church from the ultimate judgment, hell [(whatever the judgment really is - i've since changed some feelings on this)]. The first work and continued work of Christ, find a proper response displayed in Revelation - worship. Heaven and the new Earth is full of worship. God has ended the reign of sin and Satan, redeeming creation and establishing the Kingdom. This hope of the winner, a hope of a glorious end, is a remarkable breathe of fresh air. The troubles of today will fall by the wayside in comparison to the future. With this in mind, either come back to God who is in control of it all, or for the faithful, stay the course for the future for the troubles of today are temporary.

Me: first, did it make sense? as in, did you understand it?

Him: i got 1, that one i understand. i’m sketchier on 2

Me: alright, well simply enough, 1 is social, christianity - true christianity is social. we are gracious to others, ALL others, the worst of the worst both in action and word

Him: right, thats what i got from it

Me: the second, revelation is in a word: hope, we have this hope that in the end, God will finish bringing the kingdom. notice i said finish. the kingdom first, officially broke into this world through Jesus and his death

Him: right

Me: if you read luke/acts (it should be read as one really, it even says so) the kingdom of god is everywhere. jesus constantly says “the kingdom of heaven is like…” you see, many of the jews were looking for an earthly reign like king david had, the return to the monarchy, the kicking out of the romans, but jesus came and died

Him: right

Me: he sacrificed to bring about the kingdom of heaven - the kingdom of God - which looks totally different than any human structure. you die to live, gracious to your enemy, etc. and then, stay with me a sec, the book of acts is narrative story. now as a genre narrative is not particularly normative (the way we ought to respond to situations). just because a guy put out a fleece, doesn’t mean it is something we should do, or was even right for him, however, the book of acts seems entirely normative and is a continuation of luke, luke has tons of jesus saying “the kingdom of heaven is like” and then acts is an inclusio, an inclusio is kinda like bookends, but more specific, ’cause the phrase is the same on both sides. the author repeats (which is significant) and in this case, at the beginning and end, luke tells us that this is the kingdom of God entering into the world. the kingdom of God is not geographic - its the people of God (in this case, the church) and the church belongs to a different kingdom than rome - it believes in someone other than the emperor (see that blog post i did). through this belief and allegiance the church takes on a totally different ethic. one that does not assert imaginary national boundaries. the church is international, the church doesn’t kill

Him: right

Me: the church is God’s kingdom into this world, the church is a glimpse into the kingdom to come. the kingdom is not fully here in the church–there is still sin and God hasn’t fully asserted s/he rule on creation. thats what revelation is all about. there will be an end where the kingdom will come in its fullest, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done” is a pray that is both in the now and for the future. Thus this is named kingdom ethics (or kingdom theology or hope theology) make sense? its a total paradigm shift, i know

Him: ok

Me: thats the skeleton, theres so much more to it, but thats the essentials
Me: so then, christianity - the church’s purpose is to further the kingdom. how do you do that by killing? how does that represent God? things like that

Him: well, if Bush really were such a good Christian as he’s touted himself to be, he would have made an announcement that says, “we forgive you, and we will not respond in kind” immediately after 9/11/2k1

Me: which is why im not for nationalism, it sets you up to do things contrary. this is why im in favor of a church response and talking about that, this is why im a pacifist (along with a few other reasons). a church response to 9/11 instead of a united states of america revenge response

Him: yeah

Me: as a christian, i don’t think i can respond christianly within the government, or even sometimes as an American. i don’t like killing other Christians. i don’t like killing those whom are my enemies. i am called to sacrifice instead of making them die so i can have my sense of freedom. i am called to sacrifice to death out of love which is totally contrary to the modern nation state who defends itself instead of leaving that to God.

And then we moved to Constantinianism for a bit. See here: Constantinianism

Me: so basically, the church isn’t the end all that it once was, so its said we’re operating in a post-christian society

Him: huh

Me: but even when the church was “the end all” it was the church as a structure, who knows how much of it was the body of Christ. it was the church that educated. this galileo crap is just nonsense. galileo didn’t get it for exploring the heavens. he just said the church was wrong about the sun standing still - called ‘em liars and that’ll do you in. anyways, the point is you had to go through the church to do anything. so the important thing is, that when the church ruled as it did, it wasn’t always sincere ’cause it wasn’t always Christian (see here - the medicis who bought their way into the papacy)

Him: crusades, for example :(

Me: so the combination of unorthodox power, not christian orthodox power that is (see here God’s kingdom - power through sacrifice), with the government of the time was a bad bad thing. so in a sense, we’re finally just actually speaking the truth as to who the church really is - who the body of christ really is - followers of Jesus. and so now, in feeling the separation, im going with the church. so this looks similar to the early church, where they were a minority and allegiance to christ over the emperor. son of god was a loaded term. so now if you went back and read of my post, i think it’d make more sense, since i think i’ve basically just outlined it again

Me: so yeah, thats why i won’t run for office, thats why i don’t vote. i choose not to vote to say who i find allegiance in. i don’t run from society though, i engage, i value engagement, but at the same time i want to make distinctions - i don’t and won’t follow the state’s version of liturgy. its a shame that the church is visibly represented by colorado springs and the 700 club

Him: or dan brown’s book

Me: thank god for people like the ones involved in “invisible children.” they’re totally putting a new light on the church, i saw it even here in Portland

Him: yeah and people are buying into it too >:o

Me: this lady who was totally into it, hell she was organizing all the showings and then the sleep in, said that this newer version, younger version of the church was impressive. i just wish it wasn’t us only writing letters to the president and congress, but the church moving to something. and it is, through missions agencies, but still we should be louder in our own way.

Me: anyways, thats my rant.