Theological rants
of a liberal Christian

Book review: We Make the Road by Walking

Friday, June 27, 2014 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

Book review: We Make the Road by Walking

by Brian D. McLaren

★★★★★

With 52 chapters–one for each week of the year–McLaren takes us on a year-long quest toward “aliveness,” as taught by Jesus through words and example. Each chapter lists a few suggested Bible readings, gives a few pages of inspiration, and lists suggested discussion topics. His idea is that we would use this book for Bible study, with family or close friends in Christ.

“Aliveness” is a wonderful description for the type of existence Jesus wishes to share. Where the Synoptic gospels speak of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Gospel of John prefers terminology like life, life of the ages, life to the full (all much more precise translations than “eternal life”). How are we to understand the Kingdom, then? Some possibilities that resonate with our current-day language: how about The global commonwealth of God. Maybe God’s regenerative economy. Perhaps God’s beloved community or God’s holy ecosystem. You get the idea. We’re talking about a transformation of this world, not a distant kingdom in the sky.

McLaren is a liberal Christian. He is not going to preach doctrine, and in fact, even an atheist could be inspired to a more wholesome, meaningful life by Jesus. Nor does McLaren delve in church theology. You won’t be taught you’re a horrible sinner in need of repentance and covering by the salvific blood of a sacrificed god. You won’t be taught that life’s purpose is to guess which religion to believe in, so that after you die you can float away to heaven.  Instead, you’ll be reminded that God’s creation is good, we are good, life is good, and aliveness is an attainable dream. Jesus taught us how.

I’m a fan of McLaren’s straight-forward, inspirational writing. Definitely worth reading.

Jericho Books, © 2014, 281 pages

ISBN: 978-1-4555-1400-7

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Matthew 4:15, Where was the book of Matthew written?

Thursday, June 26, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Matthew 4:15, Where was the book of Matthew written?

And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum … beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

//Many scholars locate the origin of the book of Matthew to be Syria, modern day Jordan. Why do they think this?

Today’s verse provides a subtle clue. When Matthew writes of Capernaum, he refers to it as “beyond Jordan.” Capernaum was on the west side of the Jordan river, implying that the author was on the east side of the river.

Of course, there’s much more to the research than this. Matthew, though it is written in Greek like all of the other gospels, is the most “Jewish” of the four, and this corner of Syria happens to be where the Jewish Christians (known later as Ebionites) were strongest after the fall of Jerusalem. Some scholars surmise that Matthew’s author fled Jerusalem during the war (his gospel contains hints of this trauma) and if this is true, he could very well have landed in Pella, there on the east side of the Jordan river. A tradition–which I’m inclined to believe is true–is that a large number of Christians fled Jerusalem before it went under siege and resettled in Pella.

A speculative proposition, as is everything else in ancient history, but it all makes sense to me.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Romans 1:18, The “Intelligent Design” Verse

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Romans 1:18, The “Intelligent Design” Verse

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

//I quoted this verse from the New Living Translation in order to make it read clearly. (Hint: when studying a passage, you can start with the NLT for its simplicity of language, and then work your way backward to more scholar-approved translations, discerning whether or not the NLT version is justified.)

Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) believe sufficient evidence exists to convince us that the universe was created by an intelligent being. It is similar to the foundation of Deist beliefs, though IDers often go a step further to argue for a loving, omnipotent God.

Today’s verse has the reputation of being the “ID verse,” a ready biblical backup and inspiration for belief. Just look up to the sky, and everything will be clear: God had to have made all this.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Matthew 10:30, Jesus Came To Bring Division?

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Matthew 10:30, Jesus Came To Bring Division?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

//Yesterday, I brought up this verse in a discussion of whether Jesus came to bring peace or tribulation. I lean toward peace, and promised to present my own interpretation of this verse.

To me, the awkward reference to “a sword” can only refer to this Old Testament passage:

And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man’s sword shall be against his brother. –Ezekiel 38:21

Jesus’ message is therefore eschatological, referring to the expected time of severe tribulation that was to precede an era of God’s rule. Citizens would turn on their own family in the chaos of those times. Then, God’s Messiah would step in and make things right. Thus, it is not Jesus wielding the sword, but one’s own family.

Indeed, when the Jews came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus against his “brother,” his fellow Jew. But Jesus told Peter to put his sword away. “Those who take the sword shall perish with the sword,” Jesus said. His way was a way of peace.

Futurists might interpret this eschatological claim differently than I do. In my understanding, Jesus’ arrival signaled a period of unrest, a climaxing turning point in history, but his ultimate purpose was the inauguration of God’s age of peace. A dozen or more verses in the New Testament affirm this understanding, and when Jesus appeared to the Twelve after his resurrection, his message–twice repeated in the Gospel of John–was “Peace be unto you.” The age of peace had arrived with the resurrection, when Jesus triumphed over violence to rise from the dead.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Acts 10:36, The Peace of Jesus Christ

Monday, June 23, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Acts 10:36, The Peace of Jesus Christ

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all).

//I got into a discussion the other day about whether or not Jesus meant for his disciples to spread peace. We were talking about whether doctrinal differences–even major differences–should be allowed to draw lines between Christians. The discussion centered on this saying by Jesus: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Now, I don’t know for sure what this verse means–I have an opinion which I’ll share with you tomorrow–but the question today is, should we let one confusing verse overturn a multitude of verses in which Jesus preached peace? Some of these verses are quite direct:

Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. –Mark 9:50

The argument put forth by some is that we should strive for peace with those who follow Jesus, but not with those who don’t. Therefore, if a person doesn’t agree with our church’s interpretation of the doctrine of Christ, it’s time to unsheath the sword, right?

I doubt it. To let doctrine divide us is contrary to the “way:” Jesus came to “guide our feet into the way of peace.” (Luke 1:79)

We’ll talk about the sword tomorrow.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Book review: Lincoln’s Bishop

Sunday, June 22, 2014 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

Book review: Lincoln’s Bishop

by Gustav Niebuhr

★★★★★

In 1862, war broke out between the Dakota Sioux Indians and the white settlers in Minnesota, where I currently live.  Niebuhr’s new book digs below the surface to tell the story, from a 19th-century Christian bishop’s perspective.

Niebuhr writes like a journalist, and he spent nearly the first half of the book setting the stage and introducing the major players (President Lincoln, Chief Little Crow, and Bishop Whipple). There were times I struggled to maintain interest, even in light of the mistreatment of Indians. But then hostilities escalated to warfare between the Sioux and the white settlers, and the story grabbed me by the guts. Indian tactics were gruesome, and half the state of Minnesota fled in terror. Tales of horrific massacre grew like gossip. Niebuhr presents both sides of the story, which is far from clear and hardly guiltless on either side. When the dust settled, 303 Indian warriors stood ready to be hanged, and public opinion was ready to lynch any others who remained.

Enter Bishop Whipple, an Episcopal minister who took the side of the Indians. But what could Whipple accomplish against strong public opinion? How could he capture the ear of a distant President (Lincoln) whose attention was more strongly focused on civil war? What would be the fate of the 303 Indians, and hundreds of others who coexisted peacefully or–even more astounding–risked their lives to save white men, women and children during the war?

This is a story of out-of-control greed, human limits when backed against a wall, and the ugliness that results … plus one man’s determination to apply Christian principles where humanity could only fail. Highly recommended.

HarperOne, © 2014, 210 pages

ISBN: 978-0-06-209768-2

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Book Excerpt: John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened

Saturday, June 21, 2014 in Book Excerpt | 0 comments

Book Excerpt: John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened

A mysterious figure threads his way through the Gospel of John, from its beginning (see John 1:35, the unidentified partner of Andrew) to its end. This person, one of the few who had “been with [Jesus] from the beginning” (the requirement listed in verse 15:27 for a legitimate witness) appears to be finally obeying Jesus’ request to “testify,” by writing this Gospel.

John’s Gospel usually calls this person “the disciple whom Jesus loves,” though sometimes he appears as merely a silent witness. This shadowy figure invites speculation among scholars, who argue for anyone from an idealized image of the perfect Christian (rather than a historic person) to a female lover and follower of Jesus. I’m unable to entertain these speculations and instead find myself succumbing to the earliest tradition, that this figure represents John the Apostle. John, though a very important figure in the story of Jesus, appears nowhere in this Gospel … unless he is the mysterious Beloved Disciple.

Current scholarship has grown skeptical. Perhaps the most noted Johannine scholar of the twentieth century, Raymond E. Brown, once accepted the traditional identification of the Beloved Disciple as the apostle John but later changed his mind.

One thing stands out about this unidentified person: whereas many events are reported in other Gospels for which no eyewitness is presented, if we consider this shadowy figure in John to be one of the Twelve, at first a disciple of John the Baptist, then it turns out that this man was a probable eyewitness to every word and event reported in John’s Gospel, with but three notable exceptions—the conversation with the Samaritan woman, the examination before Pilate, and Jesus’ Resurrection. The first exception is probably meant to be understood as a parable, not a literal event, the second could have been relayed by Nicodemus, and the third told by Mary Magdalene.

The attestation that the mysterious figure is “the one Jesus loved,” coupled with the fact that he is privy to everything going on in Jesus’ life, suggests further that he is one of the inner three: James, John, or Peter. Since Peter is accounted for often by name in this Gospel, that leaves us with only two other options, and I think it’s reasonable in my story to trust tradition and assume this figure is intended to be John the Apostle.

This has been an admittedly short discussion, given the reams of paper that have been sacrificed to this topic, but these are the foundational points in the argument for identifying the Beloved Disciple as the apostle John.

–John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened, 2013, by Lee Harmon

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Acts 15:29, Eating Meat Sacrificed to Idols

Friday, June 20, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Acts 15:29, Eating Meat Sacrificed to Idols

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

//So ends the council in Jerusalem. As the story goes, the apostle Paul (who preached to the Gentiles) held some fundamental differences with the Jerusalem church–the Jewish Christians–and attended a council there to help straighten things out. One of the things they discussed was this matter of eating food which was unclean, because it was offered in sacrifice to idols and then sold in meat markets. Proper Jewish custom was to avoid any such meat; not only was Gentile meat impure after sacrifice to idols, but it was not properly prepared, as it was not drained of its blood.

Paul seems to agree with the council over this matter. But did he really? Paul’s letter to the Corinthians says exactly the opposite:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, –1 Corinthians 10:25

Apparently, the matter was not properly resolved. I have to side with Paul on this one.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Revelation 20:4, The Difference Between Pre- and Postmillennialism

Thursday, June 19, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 3 comments

Revelation 20:4, The Difference Between Pre- and Postmillennialism

… and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

//The millennium, from a Christian framework, refers to a period of one thousand years during which Christ will reign on earth. The technical difference between pre- and postmillennialists is simply this: One group thinks Jesus will return before the 1000 years begin, and the other thinks Jesus will return after the 1000 years are over. Also, 1000 isn’t always understood literally; it may mean simply “a long time.”

Note the word “will” in both definitions. Premillennialists and postmillennialists both agree that Jesus’ return is yet to come. Both groups are futurists, and both dream of Christ’s second arrival.

So on the face of it, there seems little difference between the two groups. What’s a thousand years here or there, right? Yet the philosophical difference is very great.

A premillennialist tends to attach little emphasis to this world and its politics. Her mood is one of expectancy and anticipation, for the day Christ returns to establish his kingdom. This world is going to get worse and worse, she imagines, until finally God steps in with a glorious return on the clouds. Then, we’ll have 1,000 years of Godly rule.

Postmillennialists, on the other hand, imagine that Christ’s reign during the 1,000 years is spiritual in nature. Human participation is therefore required; Christ aids us in establishing a Christian kingdom on earth, and will not return until the 1,000 year reign is complete. While premillennialists delight in the moral decline of the world, because it means Christ’s return is imminent, postmillennialists consider it their optimistic, Christian duty to redeem the world, to aid in reformation, so as to Christianize and make the world suitable for Christ’s return. He can’t come until we set things right.

The two groups are really as different in thinking as night and day.

Got an opinion? 3 comments

Mark 7:18-19, Are All Foods Clean?

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Mark 7:18-19, Are All Foods Clean?

“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

//Most scholars today agree that the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written with Mark in hand. It’s fascinating, therefore, to note subtle differences in how the text was copied. Sometimes what is left out is as revealing as what is written.

Matthew, for example, is recognized as the most “Jewish” of the four gospels. Matthew holds a high regard for Torah, the “law” as written in the first five books of the Bible. He insists that Jesus did not come to abolish the law at all, but that every little dot or dash in the law code is significant:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. –Matthew 5:18

What, then, does Matthew have to say about diet, since the purity of food ingested is a matter of great importance to traditional Jews? He dutifully copies the saying of Jesus presented in today’s verse, but simply ignores the moral of the story. The parenthetical statement at the end is left off, where Jesus declares all foods clean. We’re left to interpret the story on our own.

Got an opinion? 0 comments