wholly intersections
  • My Blog
  • Home
  • About Me
  • Intro to Theology

Good Jewish Boys Worshipping Jesus?

2/19/2012

0 Comments

 
In the last post I gave some thought to the resurrection in the development of theology.  One of the questions of Christian theological development is: when did the earliest Christians start believing that Jesus was divine?  It's a good question. But there is a question that is prior to that one.  A revelation for Christians who take their theology for granted is the extent to which as James K.A. Smith has written, “worship precedes doctrinal formulation.”[1] So, the question is: (when) did the earliest Christians (initially a bunch of good Jewish boys) start worshipping Jesus?  Books by top New Testament scholars like Hurtado, Bauckham and Dunn have all responded YES with a variety of nuances.  The following imagined dialogue between Simon Peter and his brother Andrew takes place between the ascension of Jesus and Pentecost. It is inspired by the following passages, though it draws on many others:

Matthew 28:16-17: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.(NRSV)

Acts 1:4-5 & 12-14: While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father. ‘This’, he said, ‘is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’ Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of* James. All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. (NRSV)
(A rooftop in Jerusalem):

  Peter: “The wind is coming up.”

Andrew: “Finally.”

P: “We should tell the others to come up here, we’ve been hiding in that room for…”

A: “Not yet.  Besides, the lot of us up here would draw attention.”

P: “Hm.”

A: “Simon?”

P: “Yes Andrew?”

A: “I want to say something.”

P: “Well?”

A: “Okay…  I was worshipping him…  There. I said it.”

P: “Yes, Andrew.  We all were.”

A: “Well?!  What does that mean?!”

P: “Andrew…  What exactly are so bothered about?”

A: “What am I bothered about?!  Simon!  Don’t you get it?  You and I were worshipping a man!!  James’ big brother!!  We were worshipping our friend’s big brother!”

P: “Okay, I think its time I told you something…”

A: “Was I adopted?!”

P: “NO!”

A: “Was Jesus adopted?!”

P: “NO!  Well, sort of… by Joseph… I guess…  Mary said… Look, it not about that! It’s about something we saw…  James and John and I… one of those times, you know?”

A: “Ahhh… Yes! Okay. Now we’re getting somewhere.”

P: “Okay, it was not to long after I said he was the Christ and then he said he was going to get crucified and I tried to talk him out of it and he called me Satan and all that… and he told us not to tell anyone about what we saw until after he rose from the dead.”

A: “Wait.  He told you he was going to rise from the dead!?!?”

P: “Well… he sort of was talking about it all over the place to everyone, it just wasn’t so clear…”

A: “SIMON!! I’m your brother!!”

P: “I’m sorry! He told us not to tell!  You know he wasn’t real keen on family-before-rabbis kind of stuff…”

A: “I am adopted… No, it must be worse than that…”

P: “Andrew, I’m sorry! Listen, please.  I’m sure James and John didn’t tell anyone either.  We went up on the mountain and he changed to… blindingly white.  His clothes were… whiter than anybody could ever wash them… shining!   And then… you’re not going to believe this…”

A: “Seriously, Simon?”

P: “Right.  Okay… Moses and Elijah appeared and Jesus talked with them!”

A: “…What?  How did you know it was them?!”

P: “See?  I knew you wouldn’t believe me …I don’t know…  I don’t remember.  Maybe he… I don’t know, it just was them!!”

A: “Well, what did they talk about?”

P: “I don’t know.”

A: “Were they whispering?!  Were they a kind of… off a ways? What did you do?  Does this story have a point?!”

P: “Ah… I don’t know!  Look, I didn’t know what to do!  It was kind of scary!  So… I asked Jesus if we should make them each a tent.”

A: “TENTS!?  Jesus is talking with Moses and Elijah and you asked them about tents!? Forgive me.  I totally believe you now…I mean… tents.  Was it Sukkot?”

P: “I just didn’t want them all to leave!  And I was nervous!  I needed something to do… wanted to make a good impression…”

A: (Stifling laughter) “Okay. Okay.  So… what did Jesus say?”

P: “Well, then this cloud came down, and we heard the voice of GOD!!  He said, “This is my beloved Son.  Listen to him!” and then everything just disappeared and it was just us and Jesus and he told us not to tell and then he said some things about Elijah and it seemed like he was saying that John the Baptist was Elijah who came to prepare the way for him.”

A: …  ‘Listen to him!!’  I guess so!  So, what am I supposed to make of that?!

P:  “We were worshipping the Christ, the Son of the living God of Israel!  I may not have gotten many things right, but I got that right.  He said so himself.”

A: “Yes, Peter, your declaration was a fine moment, but didn’t he also say, “Hear O Israel, The Lord your God the Lord is One!?” (“Shema Israel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai echad”?!) Echad, Simon!!  One!”[1]

P: “Look, I cannot answer whatever the question is that you’re trying to ask!  Perhaps if my tale is not good enough for your troubled intellect, I can run out and find a couple good Shammaites[2] to discuss the question with you.  Maybe they’ll think it’s such a good question that they will let you ask the Sanhedrin.[3]  Maybe if the Sadducees[4] can’t resolve it, then perhaps they will let you talk to the Roman governor!  Ha!”

A: “I’m sure that day will come, Simon! ‘They will drag you before kings and governors – on account of my name’?  you recall?!”

P: “’So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves; for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute’ so stop preparing your defense!!”

A: “’But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death, and you will be hated by all because of My name. Yet not a hair of your head will perish (does that even make any sense?). By your endurance you will gain your lives.’  Simon!!  Listen to us!  Like a couple of rabbis debating our teacher’s Torah…  I just want to be faithful to the God of Israel.  Please don’t mock.”

P: “Oh, Andrew…  You know I don’t the mind for this!  Why don’t you talk this out with Philip, or Thomas or Miryam.”

A: “Maybe I’ll talk to John.”

P: “John. May he live forever.  Ha!  Look, Andrew…  All the years we went up to Jerusalem for Yom Kippur.  How did you feel as we returned to our boats?”

A: “Good.  Secure.  At peace.”

P: “Really?”

A: “Yes, why?”

P: “Hm.  I didn’t expect you to say that.”

A: “Why?  How did you feel?”

P: “Wait…  Who is that?”

A: “The zealot…  Hold on.  Simon!  Hey! Listen man, you don’t want any part of this pilpul.[5]  I’m about to hemorrhage, myself.  We’ll be down in a minute and then you can come up and enjoy the breeze, okay?   …So… what?”

P: “Look, forget it.  Maybe I felt the same way.  I don’t know…  But answer this question:  How did you feel when we were with him?”

A: “…Hm.  Before or after he told us all we would have to eat his body and drink his blood?”

P: “Ha!  Yes!  Well… here we are, right?”

A: “Yes.  Okay, when we were with him…  I felt…  that perhaps I would never return to the boats…  and perhaps I did not… need(?) to go up to the Temple.  Not that I will not go!  Just that perhaps…”

P: “’Better is one day in your courts, than thousands elsewhere’? Indeed. Did you ever think, even once, while we were with him, that you wished you were at the Temple, or fishing or home!?”

A: “’The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.’  And neither did we.”

P: “Please.  You’re just being stubborn.  We had lots of places!  Just no single place.  And besides, that man could fall asleep anywhere.  He didn’t need a place to lay his head.  You’re missing the point.”

A: “Which is what?”

P: “We have been waiting for the Lord’s redemption for generations.  For the promises of the Prophets to be fulfilled.  Immanuel, yes?  Not in some box in a place we can never enter in a Temple enriched by Roman coin and half-breed kings!”

A: “Should I call the zealot back?  He would enjoy hearing this.”

P: “Bah!  We saw what the Lord thought of our zealotry, such as it was…  Look, you wanted to have this conversation!  Stop sidetracking me!”

A: “I’m sorry!  I never meant to start an argument… I just don’t know if we have considered what all this means.  Are we willing to say that Jesus was…”

P: “Was?  ‘He is the God of the living and not the dead’ Andrew.”

A: “He was talking about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Simon.”

P: “Alright.  Maybe he was.  My point is that whatever he was, he still is, yes?”

A: “…Yes… okay, yes.  If anything he is more now than he was and not less.”

P: “Now you are talking some sense brother! And wasn’t he the most pious and devout and righteous man you ever met!?  Did he not ‘love the Lord our God with all his heart and all his soul and all his strength’ in a way that we had never witnessed!?”

A: “And mind.”

P: “What?”

A: “And mind.  He said ‘heart and all his soul and all his mind and all his strength.”

P: “Yes.  Well.  You are the thinker, I hardly need to remember that I suppose.”

A: “You especially need to remember it, brother!  …But yes… we talked of his character many times.  We never tired of it.  How proud we were of our rabbi.”

P: “And when we worshipped him… Did the most pious ‘rabbi’ rebuke us?  Did he chastise us?  Did he quote to us ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only’ or ‘why do you call me good, none is good but God alone’?  No!  There was no ‘get behind me Satan’ then and the man certainly knew how to rebuke error!”

A: “And how to forgive…”

P: “Yes.  And how to forgive…  ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ they asked.  Can we take a break from this? ‘The Spirit will guide us into all truth’ in time…”

A: “Whatever that means, but yes… let’s yield the rooftop to the others…  Thank you Simon… Peter, whatever your name is now.”

P: “You want me to give you a special nickname?”

(Descending the stairs)

A: “I thought you were tired of talking.”

P: “How about ‘DIANOIA’?”[6]

A: “Kind of feminine, isn’t it?”

P: “Precisely.”

A: “I’d call you ‘raca’[7] but I don’t want to go to the Sanhedrin.”

P: “Forget the Sanhedrin, I’ll tell our mother.”

(Exit) 
 
[1] This statement is the opening of the Shema from Deuteronomy 6, the primary confession of Judaism through the ages.  Jesus quotes it in his recitation of the greatest commandment.
[2] The dominant party of the Pharisees in the 1st century, known for their strict interpretation of Torah.
[3] The Jewish council of respected elders, teachers and leaders.
[4] Leaders in the Temple, the largely well-off priestly class.  They did not believe in resurrection.
[5] Method of rabbinic Torah-study by way of dialogue and argumentation on texts between two students. From Hebrew for “pepper” intending to indicate sharp dialogical analysis.
[6] Greek for “mind.”
[7] Unclear Aramaic, seems to indicate a “false witness” or lying-gossip of some kind.

[1] Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 136
0 Comments

From Gospel to Theology: Resurrection History?

2/17/2012

1 Comment

 
We need to admit it (for some of you this will be easier than for others depending on how much you take for granted):
worshipping a Jewish craftsman who lived 2000 years ago, wandered around teaching an in-credible message and healing before being executed by Rome, is weird.  In Acts 25 the Roman governor is thoroughly bewildered about the controversy surrounding Paul and certain Jewish leader regarding "their own religion and about a certain Jesus, whom had died but Paul asserted to be alive." I mean, its NOT hard to believe, given today's celebrity-culture that people might worship the most handsome man in all Israel (as we find him in many 'Jesus' films, veritably glowing with divinity).  But what about this guy?
Picture
Not long ago, a group of scholars had some meetings to vote on whether the four gospel of the New Testament had 'historical veracity.'  Among other things, they brought in a coroner to testify that dead people stay dead, as if 1st century Jews were unfamiliar with this tenet of modern science.  In reality, the tendency of dead people to stay dead is would be precisely why some group of people might get worked up by a dead person NOT staying dead and simultaneously why they might not be believed.

I am not the first person to point out that early Christianity (and therefore later Christianity) makes no sense unless we believe that the apostles believed that Jesus did not stay dead.  So what happened?  Its easier to say what didn't happen.

1. Jesus did not survive his execution.  The Romans were pretty good at executions.  If Jesus had survived, he would have been in VERY bad shape and the apostles probably would not have had much enthusiasm for preaching his "victory over death."  In addition, this is not what the word 'resurrection' meant to anyone, as N.T. Wright has fairly conclusively shown.  "Resurrection" meant the post-mortem restoration or re-creation of one's own physical body by God.  In three of the four gospels we see the writers struggling to communicate the continuity and discontinuity of they experience with Jesus' post

2. The disciples did not think they saw some sort of "spiritual apparition" of Jesus.  When they thought Peter had been executed in Acts 12 and then he showed up, they dismissed the servant who met him by saying, "Its only his 'angel.'" Remarkably, they did not (believing in resurrection) say that the servant had witnessed Peter's resurrection, they just put it in another category, one that was dismissable.  Various people have written about the possibility or impossibility of mass hallucination.  It seems inconclusive to me.

3. Christian beliefs about Jesus were not just derivatives of a numerous other "born of a virgin, died and risen" pseudo-gods of the ancient world.  Don't let the Zeitgeist film, or any other popular teachers of comparative religion tell you that the "Jesus-cult" was just a clone of numerous ancient devotional cults; an oddity only for its survival.  Jonathan Z. Smith, a highly respected scholar of the history of religions (and no Christian apologist) has said that claims of similarity are the normal but misguided constructions of scholars who can only make sense of these VERY different devotional sects by identifying commonalities as overlooking the massive differences, some of which exist even in relation to the things that look "the same."

I'm NOT willing to say that the survival of Christianity proves that Christians are right, only that they believed something that was unbelievable by anyone's standards, ancient or modern and that they managed to convince many people who did not see what they claimed to see that what they were saying was true.  It was the resurrection that vindicated Jesus as God's man.  If he was vindicated as God's man, then his "gospel" must have been true, no matter what he looked like.
1 Comment

What is THE gospel? IV: Caesar, Jesus & Paul - What kind of kingdom is this?

2/15/2012

0 Comments

 
So far we've established that Jesus' 'gospel' message drew on 'kingdom' themes that would have resonated both for Jews and Gentile citizens of the Roman empire, but may have tweaked their ears a bit, since Jesus attached his 'gospel' announcement to God's care for those outside of Israel (Luke 4) and made it an announcement about a kingdom that was clearly NOT Rome's empire, but also seemed to lack military ambition.  

It might help to step into the shoes of someone in the ancient world.  What do kings/kingdoms, emperors/empires care about?  What is a central concern?  Loyal citizens.  Obedient subordinates.  And how did Rome deal with disloyalty and disobedience?  They, like all empires and kingdoms, 'pacify' such elements.  One instrument of such pacification was the crucifixion.  Crucifying rebels sends a certain unequivocal message.  If your town or colony was in rebellion and the imperial forces showed up, there was a HIGH probability of brutal retribution.  The "Pax Romana" (peace of Rome) was basically good for the citizens of the empire and the empire resented it deeply when their services were not appreciated.  Now, the 'gospel' of Isaiah, the prophecy of Daniel and the message of Jesus precursor, John the Baptist all indicated that in some way God was going to be showing up.  John asks his audience "Who told you to flee from the wrath to come?"  Jesus' 'gospel' indicates that "the kingdom of God" was "at hand." It might even be breaking out "in the midst of you" which was a weird way to think about it.  What was this going to be like?  The early Christians might have said, "Too bad we never got to find out" and gone their separate ways, but they didn't.
Now, let's look at what some Christians were saying about Jesus after he was crucified and (Christians' claimed) resurrected from the dead.  Here are the claims that were being made about the Roman Emperor, which we looked at in the last post, juxtaposed with the claims made about Jesus in Colossians 1:

Caesar: "equal to the beginning of all things" "the beginning of life and vitality"
Jesus: "the firstborn of all creation; 16for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
In other words: Caesar and his throne subordinate to Jesus. Ouch.

Caesar:  "when everything was falling into disorder and tending toward dissolution, he restored it once more and gave the whole world a new aura"
Jesus: "through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross."
In other words: Jesus restored everything disordered and chaotic to its right place through Rome's crucifixion of him?

Caesar: "who being sent to us and our descendents as Savior, has put an end to war and has set all things in order;" Jesus: 13He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. v21 "And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him"
Assuming we already know how Caesar "puts an end to war" Jesus does it differently - through "reconciling" and "forgiving" rebels and presenting them blameless.  Blameless?  Not just "forgiven"?  What a weird emperor?!

Caesar:  "having become god-manifest, Caesar has fulfilled all the hopes of earlier times…the birthday of the god (Augustus) has been the beginning of evangelion concerning him…"
Jesus: 15 "He is the image of the invisible God,... 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell," and a bit later:  9"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,"
In other words, "Yes, the great emperor of emperors did come to a rebellious people in and through Jesus, but instead of coming with retribution, he came and allowed us to do our worst to him.  He exposed our fear and animosity but somehow transformed it through suffering."

The message is remarkably consistent, from the parables of the kingdom that Jesus describes where the kingdom becomes a rather indiscriminate home for the riff-raff of the world, to Luke's Jesus saying "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" while he's hanging on the cross, to the (THE) major theme of Paul's letters which are overwhelmingly concerned with reconciliation and the unity of formerly divided people (ethnically, religiously, nationally) in the church. Even the 'gospel' of John has Jesus telling Nicodemus that "unless he is born of water and the Spirit" he cannot "perceive the kingdom of God." Indeed, who COULD perceive it without a radical paradigm shift?But even here, we have Jesus (or John) saying, "God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." But those who run in fear from the emperor; who cannot imagine that they might be rendered "blameless" cannot find out that this is the verdict - they are running from a messenger of good news because they fear the news is bad.

The passage we've considered from Colossians concludes with this: "I, Paul, became a servant of this gospel."  Indeed.  The books of Acts that recounts Paul's travels concludes with him living under some sort of house-arrest and:28:30 "He lived there for two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him, 31proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance."


Next, we'll have to backtrack a little bit and consider 1) The divinity of Jesus? and 2) What are the implications of this message?  Wright (a major influence for me) sums things up well here:
0 Comments

What is THE gospel? III: Kingdom

2/8/2012

0 Comments

 
In part 1, I wrote about the abuse of the word gospel to mean whatever we want it to mean.  In part 2, I showed how Jesus drew on (and revised) the good news proclaimed by Isaiah.  Let's look at one more passage from the Hebrew scriptures and a Roman "text" that also predates Jesus.  If gospel is significantly connected to language of God's kingship or rule in Isaiah (it is) and also in the teaching of Jesus (it is), then we should also be paying attention to other things that sound like "royal announcements."

In Daniel 7, the writer describes this vision: 13As I watched in the night visions,  I saw one like a human being* coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. 14To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. (NRSV)
*Aramaic “a son of man”

Some people see Jesus' (self?) references to the "Son of Man" as affirmations of his humanity, but given the fact that Mark 14 records Jesus referencing this passage at his trial, it seems like all that "Son of Man" stuff might be less humble than it appears on the surface.

Now, let's look at an inscription from a Roman government building that also predates Jesus, cited in Richard Horsley's Jesus and Empire (p.23-24): The most divine Caesar… we should consider equal to the beginning of all things… for when everything was falling into disorder and tending toward dissolution, he restored it once more and gave the whole world a new aura; Caesar…the common good Fortune of all… The beginning of life and vitality… All the cities unanimously adopt the birthday of the divine Caesar as the new beginning of the year… Whereas the Providence which has regulated our whole existence…has brought our life to the climax of perfection in giving us (the emperor) Augustus…who being sent to us and our descendents as Savior, has put an end to war and has set all things in order; and (wheras) having become god-manifest, Caesar has fulfilled all the hopes of earlier times…the birthday of the god (Augustus) has been the beginning of evangelion concerning him… 

Yes, evangelion was also the word the Romans would use to announce (grandiose?) imperial good news (battles won, heirs born, emperors crowned).  Of course, it does seem like the Romans had pretty good reason to be confident about their message.  I mean, Caesar may not have made many claims to miraculous healing or anything, but you can't argue with the achievements of Roman power, right?  Seems like pretty empirical (pun intended) stuff.  But why would a Jewish carpenter start wandering around announcing a different evangelion to subservient denizens of Rome's vassal state (if he wasn't anticipating a take-over)?  And (even more weirdly?) why would Jesus' followers continue to announce this evangelion (in even more competitively grandiose terms?) after the Romans executed him?
0 Comments

What is THE gospel? II: The gospel before Jesus

2/7/2012

0 Comments

 
In the last post we basically discussed a method for figuring out what the gospel was/IS as opposed to just using the term to mean anything we want.  Here I want to look at 2 related texts from Isaiah (which pre-dates Jesus).  Here's why:
You're thinking, "Huh?"  Well, the people who heard Jesus and his followers talk about "gospel" had a frame of reference for that word.  Most people today do not (see this post).  So, we read the "gospel" in the New Testament by filling in the background (ie. green screen) with our own ideas about it.  We assume that the audience 2000 years ago heard the same thing we are hearing.  However, that audience (and those "gospelers") had some previous experience with the words that would have filled in that background and helped them make sense of it differently.     

First, let's look at a text from Isaiah: 
52: 7 How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news,*
       who proclaim peace,
       who bring good tidings,
       who proclaim salvation,
       who say to Zion,
       "Your God reigns!" 

Okay, so we can see that the "good news" here seems to have something to do with the god of Isaiah and his audience being in charge the way a ruling king is in charge and that God sending a message of peace and salvation (in this case from exile and subservience to Babylon, who had conquered them in 587 b.c.e.).   I think most people would agree that if any such deity WAS in charge, that a message of peace and salvation would be good news (unless one was Babylonian or Persian perhaps, since they conquered Babylon).

Now, Isaiah 61:1-2 picks up the gospel language: 
"The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me  to preach good news to the poor.          
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, the day of the vengeance of our God."

This get more specific and more complicated.  The good news is the advent of a particular year and day.  It is the announcement of the year of Jubilee from Leviticus in which the Israelites were mandated to cancel debts and return land that had been sold or traded to its original owners.  God's economic plan for Israel seems to have been a cycle of 49 years of fairly laisse-faire dealings followed by a decisive punch to the "reset" button.  Anyway, tt seems clearer here that the good news is good for some people and not others.  Some will get favor and freedom and others vengeance?  Some people will get their stuff back and others will lose the stuff that they had accumulated.

Getting slightly ahead of myself, This second passage is the one Jesus reads (and announces the fulfillment of) in Luke 4, BUT Jesus leaves OFF the "vengeance" line and offers some upsetting commentary to his audience that in the days of the prophets of Israel, God's favor had been extended to people outside the community of Israel, even to a military leader of their enemies, even when there were those inside the community that needed God's favor in the same way and didn't get it.  Whoops.  Did God mis-fire?  Jesus seems to indicate that it was intentional.    

Next we'll look at a passage from Daniel and an ancient Roman account of the evangelion.
0 Comments

Q: What is "THE gospel"?

2/6/2012

0 Comments

 
A. One of the first four books of the New Testament (ie. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
B. A type of church music sung primarily by African Americans and white Southerners
C. a shorthand way of explaining how to become a Christian or "get saved"
D. a euphemism for any true statement
E. None of the Above

If "gospel" is used to describe too many things, it becomes somewhat meaningless, almost like our culture's "4 letter words."  If we look at the Bible (this should make sense as a starting place) we see that "gospel" or "good news" is part of the message of Isaiah in the Hebrew scriptures (Hebrew - besara) and it is the English translation in the New Testament of the Greek word evangelion presumably used by Jesus and Paul (unless you believe in Aramaic priority but let's not go there). god-spell is not just a Broadway musical, it is the old English word meaning "good tidings/news" which is exactly what evangelion means.  If you look close you can see the word "angel" there in the middle.   Angels are so-called because they are the messengers of God's news/tidings... You get it.  
If, as Karl Barth suggests, the Christian "proclamation" (ie. basic message) is the foundation of Christian theology, then it might be important to figure out what that is. In addition to "None of the above" answers to our question, we'd have to add that "THE gospel" can't be both a summary of MY theology and also the foundation of CHRISTIAN theology (if my theology is Christian).  Instead, we should hope that "THE gospel" creates the questions that any Christian theology tries to answer and we should try to figure out how the Bible (which gives us numerous examples of the message of Jesus and his earliest followers) uses the term "gospel" and derive our account of what "THE gospel" is from there. 
For fun, let's insert Rob Bell's brief account of the gospel here, because Rob is a lightening rod for controversy (personally, I like him) and I might get more readers if I include it:
What do you think?  We'll be looking at biblical (and pre-biblical) references to "gospel" next, so rather than measure it against material I haven't presented yet, let's just ask this:  If what he says was true, would it be good news?
0 Comments

Welcome to Intro to Theology

2/5/2012

0 Comments

 
This is the best place and the best way to get engaged in theology.  This isn't your home church, your family's dining room table or the workplace break room where conversations can become a high-stakes game of "you're in or you're out" or "you're a reasonable person or a crazy religious zealot."  Use this as a laboratory for ideas:  maybe they are your ideas, maybe they are ideas you've heard that you need to hear someone respond to.  Either way, I think all Christians need to spend some time thinking about the things we take for granted.  But, we don't like to do that.  It can be scary and besides, they take up less space and energy if we just take them for granted.  
Problem 1: When we take our theological assumptions for granted, challenges to faith make our House of Cards crumble.
Picture
Problem 2:  Christians have a credibility problem that is compounded by our ignorance about our own faith traditions.
As Barbara Brown Taylor writes in her 2008 article for Christian Century, "Failing Christianity" our churches often support us in believing things that we really don't know very much about.  Many Christians don't even know what the words that they use to describe their beliefs MEAN.  It is important for Christians to learn a bit about the history and vocabulary of Christian belief.
Last but not least, I think theology should have "street value." This might mean that Christians need to find ways to "re-jargoned" or translate their theology into the thought categories of their own culture.  This is a huge debate:  Is accepting the Christian message a cultural conversion (where one learns the language of the Christian faith) or is the onus of conversion on the Christian (to translate the faith into the terms of the receptor culture)?
In my view, we must do both.  Christians need to get themselves educated and if they do so, they may find that they don't need to "re-invent the wheel."  On the other hand:   Karl Barth wrote the the work of dogmatics was to always be beginning at the beginning, by which he meant, the "gospel" that is the basic Christian message. 
0 Comments

    Author

    Matt Hunter is a theological platypus, and he likes it that way.  You might notice that the Bible is a bit of a conglomerate creation too.

    Archives

    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    February 2012

    Categories

    All
    Jesus Divinity
    Resurrection
    What Is THE Gospel?

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.