Weblog
Sunday, May 11, 2008
-

Currently Reading
Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation
By Miroslav Volf
see relatedFormerly: Righteous Zealot. Currently: Apostle of Peace
There is some disagreement over exactly what kind of Pharisee the apostle Paul was before he converted to Christianity on the Damascus road. One thing we do know from the book of Acts is that Paul was a righteously violent one. We read in the early chapters of Acts that Paul was probably quite influential in the stoning of the early Christian martyr Stephen, and that he was on his way to kill more Christians when he met the risen Christ on the Damascus road.
Whatever brand of Judaism he espoused, it was one that saw the early Christian movement as a heretical sect of Judaism – a sect that needed to be violently put down. Violence was considered a justifiable action. Violence, moreover, was the manner in which the true community of Yahweh remained pure. His justification of violence was not merely out of hatred, but more out of righteous anger. His actions were, indeed, justified by the Torah. He was, after all, going to kill those people who said they had experienced Yahweh in the flesh. If there were ever a justifiable reason for violence it would be the protection of the community of Yahweh.
This violent streak changes after Paul’s conversion. While seeing himself in line with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Paul does not act in the manner of Elijah in his interaction with the prophets of Baal. Paul does not see pagan peoples as undeserving of life – even those ones who were oppressive to him and his Christ. Rather, Paul takes the position that through his suffering at their hands, he will “fill up that which is lacking in Christ’s sufferings” (Colossians 1:24). That is, he will be a living example of Christ’s unjust suffering at the hands of violent, sinful people. He fully expects this witness (same Gk. word as martyr) to be a living narrative of the death of Christ, and His love for unbelievers.
What I find particularly interesting here is that Paul’s position on violence has a dramatic shift. Before his conversion he sees violence as a justifiable action – especially against heretics. In fact, his Hebrew Bible justifies violent actions against non-Jews as well*. But when Paul converts we find no desire or justification for aggression and violence. As I noted before, even in relationship to Rome Paul command submission as a means of overcoming “evil with good.”
This dramatic change in Paul, combined with other arguments, demonstrates for me that the violence justified and even commanded by God in the Hebrew Bible is not an option for the Christian. Even the Canaanite genocides were performed in order to take the Promised Land from the pagans. Now, for Paul and Christians in general, there is no Promised Land. The kingdom of God transcends a Promised Land. A people who have no/limited nationalistic identity, a people whose new law of love has surpassed the divinely instructed violence, and a people whose chief example (besides Christ) Paul forsakes violence have no justification for violence.
Paul's letters are filled with his comments that say something like, "formerly you were {insert something bad}, but now you are {insert something related to being saved by Christ}." I think his life expemplifies this: Formerly: An Agent of Rigteous Violence. Currently: An Apostle of Peace.
*Yes, I am aware the Torah also provided means of accepting non-Jews. However, I am primarily responding here to the genocides of Joshua.
Friday, May 09, 2008
-

Currently Reading
Paul's Letter to the Philippians (New International Commentary on the New Testament)
By Gordon D. Fee
see relatedSupport Our Pacifists
Anyone (JR) want to make a T-shirt out of this?

Tuesday, May 06, 2008
-

Currently Listening
August and Everything After
By Counting Crows
see relatedProtestant Prayer to the Saints
The Catholic Church teaches that death does not separate the church of God from itself. We are members of one another and this solidarity continues even after we have been taken from this world. This is why they pray to the deceased. It’s not that they’re worshipping the dead, they just believe death is not strong enough to rend them from one another.Though Protestants are often scared by such a thought, I wonder if there’s biblical precedent for it. Paul’s discussion of the “Heavenly Realms” throughout Ephesians provides us with one foundation. In this realized eschatological terminology, Paul sees the “living” ecclesia participating in worship with the “dead” ecclesia in the presence of Christ who is at the right hand of God. In other words, though we are “living” and they are “dead,” we are together!
Furthermore, the author of Hebrews tells us that we run our race with a crowd of deceased saints around us. They are not removed from us, they are encouraging us to run our race in perseverance. We participate in the narrative of redemptive history together with the saints.
So, if the church of God is not separated by death, then it is a far stretch for us to consider the possibility that the deceased saints intercede for the living saints? Why would they not pray for the perseverance of their loved ones still living? If they can cry out for justice below the throne of God (See Revelation), why can they not cry out for perseverance?
But if this is possible – if they are in our midst and still interacting enough to pray for us, is it possible that we can communicate with them? I don’t mean this in some “Ghost Whisperer” sort of way. I simply mean, if a brother or sister in the Lord dies, but, say, we had unforgiveness in our hearts toward them, is it possible for us to apologize to them? Must we just be restricted to asking for God's forgiveness? Certainly, unforgiveness is a sin against God. But do you think its possible to reconcile with a believer who has in fact passed on?
I don’t know. Just brainstorming here. Thinking about dead people. Maybe being morbid. I’m not coming down on this….I’m just thinking out loud.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
-

Currently Reading
Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 33b, Matthew 14-28 (hagner), 568pp
By Donald A. Hagner
see relatedThe Latest on My Love Life - Dating a Woman From Syrian Phoenicia
For the last 3 days I’ve been dating a woman from Lebanon. Well, to be exact, she’s from Syrian Phoenicia (I call her SP). For the most part, my wife doesn’t mind. We have a pretty open relationship. The only time it really bothers her is when SP keeps me up all night talking. But she’s just so fascinating that it’s hard for me to tell her goodnight. Besides, she’s a good insomnia partner.
She makes my heart flutter in that “new love” sort of way. I know we’re only in our honeymoon stage, but I think this could be the real thing. I’d write her a poem, but unfortunately she can’t read. Don’t get all judgmental about it though. Syrian Phoenicia is an oral culture, so I bet she can best you in a memorization contest…either that or I just like my women ignorant and barefooted – you know how we Kentuckians are!
I think about her all the time and when I’m away from her I’m always talking about her. I swear my friends are going to get annoyed, but so far they’ve been patient. Eric and Josh pass me notes in class asking if SP and I are going to get married someday. I just blush and fold up the note to put in my “SP loves Thom” scrapbook.
She’s a bit older than me, which isn’t too much of a problem right now. I like older women. They’re so wise, you know? They’ve been there and done that. She’s not afraid of the stupid boundaries placed on her by society – she’s broken them before, she’ll break them again. It’s kind of liberating to date a woman who shakes her fist in the face of The Man.
Sometimes her accent is difficult to understand, but she’s got the best sense of humor. Not even God Himself could best her in a duel of wits. She’s got the best “Yo Mamma” jokes around. JR would be proud.
She does have a daughter, but we’ve not met. I doubt we ever will. Part of the problem is that her daughter is possessed or something. Well, at least that’s what SP tells me. I have no reason not to believe her, but she’s a bit superstitious like that sometimes. Her daughter’s probably just ugly…
She's totally Liberal, though. She's convincing me that the Canaanite Genocides may not have been God's plan. After all, she wouldn't be here if the Israelites had succeeded. But, really, since when is it a Liberal idea that the ethics of Jesus challenge and supersedes the ethics of the Torah? If Christ is the apex of human history, she says, and Christ was non-violent, don't you think the godliness of those genocides should be questioned? Anyway, she's got me thinking.
She's a pacifist. I like that.
She knows her Bible pretty well for someone who didn’t grow up in church. She’s got a good sense of mercy and justice, both of which are good. At least I know that if she breaks my heart she’ll do it gently and at the right time – none of this, “It’s not you, it’s me” crap. None of this “God told me to do it” trash.Well, anyway, just thought I’d catch you up on what’s going on in my love life….spicy ain’t it?
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
-

Currently Reading
Castrating Culture: A Christian Perspective on Ethnic Identity from the Margins
By Dawi Hughes
see relatedFrom Avarice to Abnegation...Intentional Community Style
My wife and I are joining/starting an intentional community of mutual sharing and responsibility. We will be moving in on April 26.Here are some thoughts I've had during this process...
One of the great doctrines of ancient Church lies in their teaching that death cannot separate the ekkelesia of God from itself. Indeed, this is one of the great doctrines of Pauline theology if we read Ephesians carefully enough. Death cannot alienate us either from the love of God or from fellowship of one another. The church, the community of Christ, is so solidified, so fused together, and so intertwined that the feeble attempts of our “final enemy” to rupture our bonds of faith are fated to failure.
Oh, but what death could not accomplish American individualism has achieved. The same church Paul commands to be “united in Spirit” and “contending as one soul for the faith of the gospel” has been torn asunder like the pitied girl whose corpse was cut in 12 chunks and mailed to each of Israel’s most powerful mob families. Individualism’s insipid doctrine of self-autonomy and self-betterment have all but made the church a privatized social club calling for no accountability and possessing no prophetic voice. And when you have a group of self-oriented people attempting to do life together, factions and schism are inevitable – it’s like sticking a bunch of 2 year olds in a sandbox together; it’s not going to be long before it becomes a human litter box despite the protests of those who know better.
From where does this individualism emerge? Surely not form within the biblical text with its persistent call for communal unity. And surely not from church tradition which stresses that there is no salvation apart from the church community – that is, one cannot claim to be a Christian and not participate in the redeemed community.
But it would be too premature a jump for me to say that it arises out of some secular-liberal agenda clandestinely subverting the church and its "Christian" culture. In fact, this would be the easy answer wouldn’t it? After all, aren’t those “leftists” to blame for all our problems? It certainly couldn’t be that we’ve swallowed our own red pill, could it?
Sociologist Max Weber actually traces American individualism back to….wait for it….Protestantism (specifically it’s early American Puritan version). In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism ,Weber argues that the Calvinistic theology of early American Protestantism focused largely on individual election and the signs thereof. That "God has predestined me, personally, to eternal salvation is manifested in the fact that he has prospered me with material gain” was the thought of the hour, and has stayed around long after Puritanism died under the weight of its own self-righteousness.
For me, this assumption is largely what our little community will challenge. I want my materialistic, self-focused Christianity to be defenestrated like a bad grade card on the bus ride home from school. I want to proceed from avarice to abnegation and learn to think of others more highly than I do myself. I want to learn to blame myself first for community conflict instead of assuming others are always asinine. I want to purge the materialistic, privatized, self-absorbed religiosity from my soul, that somehow I might know Christ and the power of his resurrection in a more meaningful way. I want to confront and be confronted with sin. I want to lay my soul bare before others so that there remains no crevice left for falsehood to fester.
Dear God, I must be insane…



