Next time we'll begin a discussion of Phyllis Tickle's The Great Emergence. Check out this link for a free download of part of the book, a free discussion guide and some video clips of Phyllis discussing the major points of her book.
You don't need to run out and get the book before Thursday in order to participate in our conversation. You can download and read the excerpt (it is on "The Book" tab at the bottom of the page) and/or listen to the videos. See you Thursday!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Paul and Women
I took part in a Bible study on Paul and women last week and the discussion took an interesting shape. We began by locating points in those letters that are undisputed as to their being authentically written by Paul. We asked what these women's roles were in the church.
We noticed that these women were identified with their household and discussed how some think that is because the household was seen as the woman's domain. We weren't totally convinced because men were often identified with their households as their head, specifically in Acts where they speak of baptizing households.
So then we discussed the possibility that Paul was addressing women as the heads of their households. That would be truly revolutionary. It was clear these women had active roles in these churches and were identified as leaders of at least portions of the churches in their cities.
The other interesting thing is these women are mentioned with no reference to a husband almost all of the time. Were they unmarried? Were they married but to non-believers who had no role in the church? Were they married but addressed singularly because the kingdom of God was a different kind of place where women were valuable in and of themselves and not due to the men they served? Were they addressed singularly because of Paul's seeming belief in the imminent return of Christ resulting in his deemphasis of marriage because of all the kingdom work that needed to be done?
Now, it doesn't seem the letters let us know what the reason is but if it is Paul's intentional kingdom effort to give linguistic and symbolic dignity to women who had been otherwise subjected, then that flies in the face of the submission language in Paul's disputed letters. You could say that Paul's language regarding there being no male or female in Christ makes this case clear but that borders on the proof texting we hope to avoid in hopes of wholistic biblical interpretation.
Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
We noticed that these women were identified with their household and discussed how some think that is because the household was seen as the woman's domain. We weren't totally convinced because men were often identified with their households as their head, specifically in Acts where they speak of baptizing households.
So then we discussed the possibility that Paul was addressing women as the heads of their households. That would be truly revolutionary. It was clear these women had active roles in these churches and were identified as leaders of at least portions of the churches in their cities.
The other interesting thing is these women are mentioned with no reference to a husband almost all of the time. Were they unmarried? Were they married but to non-believers who had no role in the church? Were they married but addressed singularly because the kingdom of God was a different kind of place where women were valuable in and of themselves and not due to the men they served? Were they addressed singularly because of Paul's seeming belief in the imminent return of Christ resulting in his deemphasis of marriage because of all the kingdom work that needed to be done?
Now, it doesn't seem the letters let us know what the reason is but if it is Paul's intentional kingdom effort to give linguistic and symbolic dignity to women who had been otherwise subjected, then that flies in the face of the submission language in Paul's disputed letters. You could say that Paul's language regarding there being no male or female in Christ makes this case clear but that borders on the proof texting we hope to avoid in hopes of wholistic biblical interpretation.
Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Recap of February 26th conversation
We had eight at the cohort conversation on February 26. After agreeing that we had pretty much finished discussing The Shack at our January meeting, at least for the being, we turned to a discussion of JD’s post on Talking and Walking (see the second January 30th post, below).
There are so many attractional churches today, what’s an emergent-minded person to do? Should one try to work from within to make attractional churches more missional? Should we leave our attractional churches and start new missional fellowships? Should we stay at our attractional churches and just try to be missional on an individual basis? If you know our group, you won’t be surprised that the consensus answer was “yes” to each question. Each of us will find different ways to be missional, and we need to remember that God uses all churches in different ways. It is too easy to be smug about your current church, without remembering that (hopefully) we are on a journey and that we’ll all be in a different, more mature place tomorrow than we are today.
If you were at the meeting, please feel free to add your comments, and if you weren’t there, please feel free to add your comments – this way the conversation will continue…
Next time we’ll take up our discussion of Phyllis Tickle’s new book, The Great Emergence. See the February 23rd post below for more information…
There are so many attractional churches today, what’s an emergent-minded person to do? Should one try to work from within to make attractional churches more missional? Should we leave our attractional churches and start new missional fellowships? Should we stay at our attractional churches and just try to be missional on an individual basis? If you know our group, you won’t be surprised that the consensus answer was “yes” to each question. Each of us will find different ways to be missional, and we need to remember that God uses all churches in different ways. It is too easy to be smug about your current church, without remembering that (hopefully) we are on a journey and that we’ll all be in a different, more mature place tomorrow than we are today.
If you were at the meeting, please feel free to add your comments, and if you weren’t there, please feel free to add your comments – this way the conversation will continue…
Next time we’ll take up our discussion of Phyllis Tickle’s new book, The Great Emergence. See the February 23rd post below for more information…
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Great Emergence
This week, if we wrap up our discussion from last month, we'll begin a discussion of Phyllis Tickle's The Great Emergence. Check out this link for a free download of part of the book, a free discussion guide and some video clips of Phyllis discussing the major points of her book.
You don't need to run out and get the book before Thursday in order to participate in our conversation. You can download and read the excerpt (it is on "The Book" tab at the bottom of the page) and/or listen to the videos. See you Thursday!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Next Meeting February 26
We will meet next Thursday, February 26, at ESCAPE, 600 E Bethany, in Allen, at 7:00 PM. We will continue our discussion from last month and if time permits we'll discuss Phyllis Tickle's new book The Great Emergence. You do not have to read the book in order to participate in our discussions. Just come and share in the conversation.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Temptation of Jesus
I’ve come across a couple of readings of the temptation of Jesus recently that have intrigued me. I thought I’d share them:
Unmasking the Powers by Walter Wink (I mistakenly called this Engaging the Powers last night. That would be the third part of the powers trilogy)
This book left my head spinning in a good way. It begins with Wink looking at how the understanding of Satan evolved through the history of Scripture and beyond. This being/idea began as part of the heavenly hosts and was a viewed as God’s sifter who presented tests to his humanity to separate the wheat and the chaff.
However, as the Jewish people began to rethink their understanding of God as behind all good and evil, Satan began to take on a more prominent role as adversary. However, it is most likely after the biblical account closes that Satan is finally seen as evil personified.
Wink says Satan, in the gospels, is adversary. Satan, through Jewish tradition, is offering Jesus a quick fix. He can turn stones into bread to feed the masses and start a movement. Satan then uses Scripture to tempt him again to prove he is the Son of God by casting himself off the temple, perhaps alluding to Malachi 3:1-4. Then, Satan tempts him with the leadership of a Jewish empire ruling over all nations having overthrown Rome.
Wink concludes of Satan:
“He is no archfiend seducing Jesus with offers of love, wealth and carnal pleasures. Satan’s task is much more subtle…Satan offers him, in short, not outright evils, but the highest goods known to Israel. That is when the satanic is most difficult to discern- when it offers the good instead of the best.
The question to us becomes, “What traditional ‘goods’ are keeping us from the post-resurrection ‘Best’?”
Then take John Howard Yoder’s Politics of Jesus.
Yoder begins with the announcement at the baptism that Jesus is the Son of God, which he says,” is not the definition or accreditation of a metaphysically defined status of sonship, it is a summons to a task.”
Thus, “The tempter’s hypothetical syllogism ‘If you are the Son of God, then…’ is reasoning not from a concept of metaphysical sonship but from kingship”
Yoder goes on to state the temptation in Luke begins with the economic option, not a concern of Jesus feeding himself. A miraculous banquet supplied by turning stones into bread would yield him great power.
The second temptation is to be an imperial ruler. Bowing the knee before Satan is embracing the “idolatrous character of political power hunger and nationalism.”
Yoder then states that the pinnacle of the temple is about much more than Jesus taking a leap of faith. Two possibilities of meaning exist within the history of Jewish thought in the image of the pinnacle of the temple. One is that being thrown from the tower in the temple into the Kidron valley outside the temple was the punishment for blasphemy. Jesus may have been tempted to seek miraculous deliverance from the penalty for his claims to divine authority and kingship.
The second is the descent of an apparition within the temple which Wink too directed us to in Malachi 3. Jesus may have considered stopping at being an unheralded religious reformer and heavenly messenger and taking the violent path of many a “messiah” before and after him. Even here, the ultimate expectation is that the victory would mean the messiah wouldn’t die for his claims but his enemies would.
The question for Yoder would be, “Would Jesus follow the way of the kings of the world through all history in their thirst for personal and nationalistic power or as king of the world be the “bearer of a new possibility of human, social, and therefore political relationships.”
So are we stuck living in the now or bearing the new possibility of humanity?
It’s a lot to work through, but give some thought and let me know what you think.
Unmasking the Powers by Walter Wink (I mistakenly called this Engaging the Powers last night. That would be the third part of the powers trilogy)
This book left my head spinning in a good way. It begins with Wink looking at how the understanding of Satan evolved through the history of Scripture and beyond. This being/idea began as part of the heavenly hosts and was a viewed as God’s sifter who presented tests to his humanity to separate the wheat and the chaff.
However, as the Jewish people began to rethink their understanding of God as behind all good and evil, Satan began to take on a more prominent role as adversary. However, it is most likely after the biblical account closes that Satan is finally seen as evil personified.
Wink says Satan, in the gospels, is adversary. Satan, through Jewish tradition, is offering Jesus a quick fix. He can turn stones into bread to feed the masses and start a movement. Satan then uses Scripture to tempt him again to prove he is the Son of God by casting himself off the temple, perhaps alluding to Malachi 3:1-4. Then, Satan tempts him with the leadership of a Jewish empire ruling over all nations having overthrown Rome.
Wink concludes of Satan:
“He is no archfiend seducing Jesus with offers of love, wealth and carnal pleasures. Satan’s task is much more subtle…Satan offers him, in short, not outright evils, but the highest goods known to Israel. That is when the satanic is most difficult to discern- when it offers the good instead of the best.
The question to us becomes, “What traditional ‘goods’ are keeping us from the post-resurrection ‘Best’?”
Then take John Howard Yoder’s Politics of Jesus.
Yoder begins with the announcement at the baptism that Jesus is the Son of God, which he says,” is not the definition or accreditation of a metaphysically defined status of sonship, it is a summons to a task.”
Thus, “The tempter’s hypothetical syllogism ‘If you are the Son of God, then…’ is reasoning not from a concept of metaphysical sonship but from kingship”
Yoder goes on to state the temptation in Luke begins with the economic option, not a concern of Jesus feeding himself. A miraculous banquet supplied by turning stones into bread would yield him great power.
The second temptation is to be an imperial ruler. Bowing the knee before Satan is embracing the “idolatrous character of political power hunger and nationalism.”
Yoder then states that the pinnacle of the temple is about much more than Jesus taking a leap of faith. Two possibilities of meaning exist within the history of Jewish thought in the image of the pinnacle of the temple. One is that being thrown from the tower in the temple into the Kidron valley outside the temple was the punishment for blasphemy. Jesus may have been tempted to seek miraculous deliverance from the penalty for his claims to divine authority and kingship.
The second is the descent of an apparition within the temple which Wink too directed us to in Malachi 3. Jesus may have considered stopping at being an unheralded religious reformer and heavenly messenger and taking the violent path of many a “messiah” before and after him. Even here, the ultimate expectation is that the victory would mean the messiah wouldn’t die for his claims but his enemies would.
The question for Yoder would be, “Would Jesus follow the way of the kings of the world through all history in their thirst for personal and nationalistic power or as king of the world be the “bearer of a new possibility of human, social, and therefore political relationships.”
So are we stuck living in the now or bearing the new possibility of humanity?
It’s a lot to work through, but give some thought and let me know what you think.
Talking and Walking
I thought our discussion about where we're headed was valuable last night. It's a conversation worth continuing. I think there are probably important activities each one on us are undertaking.
Me? I do what I can find to do to help. But I'm mostly an idea guy. I have ideas, like starting a health clinic in The Colony/Little Elm area. Execution is the problem. I hardly know where to start and have tried contacting numerous folks who should be in the know but haven't had calls or emails returned. Truthfully, I've gotten discouraged and haven't done anything on tht front in the past few months.
But I think it is important that we both talk the talk and walk the walk, whether that is by acting together, or equipping one another to build our own networks of action and keeping one another accountable, in a supportive, non-guilt driven approach.
This post on the EV site from this woman from a non-Christian background seemed to say it all.
What we are saying has meaning for a wide spectrum of people. But that meaning will only last if it is accompanied by action. Love of God is non-existent without love of neighbor.
And I suppose this takes us to attractional church vs. missional church debate.
I don't want to turn this into a dualistic idea, but whatever the church model is, it must emphasize mission.
And if we heed the instruction of Walter Wink and N. T. Wright, mission takes the shape not necessarily of eliminating the powers of the nations but in resisting them inasmuch as they fail to reflect the purpose given them by the Creator by exploiting the weak and the poor and ruling through various forms of domination. It also means resisting ourselves inasmuch as we fail to reflect the image of the Creator.
In the words of Bono, it's not about charity. It's about justice. Or we can put it another way. It's not about dependency. It's about dignity.
I think this sort of collective spirit would put us fully in solidarity with the widow, orphan, and stranger and pull us over the walls we build on our paths. I think, also, we would find that the change needed to embrace such solidarity and the challenge it would present our culture's spirituality (by proclaiming and demonstrating that Jesus, the executed Christ, is Lord of the world) would reveal to us that there is opposition to Jesus, even in America.
These are strong words and this cohort blog is meant to be a dialogue, so please respond.
Me? I do what I can find to do to help. But I'm mostly an idea guy. I have ideas, like starting a health clinic in The Colony/Little Elm area. Execution is the problem. I hardly know where to start and have tried contacting numerous folks who should be in the know but haven't had calls or emails returned. Truthfully, I've gotten discouraged and haven't done anything on tht front in the past few months.
But I think it is important that we both talk the talk and walk the walk, whether that is by acting together, or equipping one another to build our own networks of action and keeping one another accountable, in a supportive, non-guilt driven approach.
This post on the EV site from this woman from a non-Christian background seemed to say it all.
What we are saying has meaning for a wide spectrum of people. But that meaning will only last if it is accompanied by action. Love of God is non-existent without love of neighbor.
And I suppose this takes us to attractional church vs. missional church debate.
I don't want to turn this into a dualistic idea, but whatever the church model is, it must emphasize mission.
And if we heed the instruction of Walter Wink and N. T. Wright, mission takes the shape not necessarily of eliminating the powers of the nations but in resisting them inasmuch as they fail to reflect the purpose given them by the Creator by exploiting the weak and the poor and ruling through various forms of domination. It also means resisting ourselves inasmuch as we fail to reflect the image of the Creator.
In the words of Bono, it's not about charity. It's about justice. Or we can put it another way. It's not about dependency. It's about dignity.
I think this sort of collective spirit would put us fully in solidarity with the widow, orphan, and stranger and pull us over the walls we build on our paths. I think, also, we would find that the change needed to embrace such solidarity and the challenge it would present our culture's spirituality (by proclaiming and demonstrating that Jesus, the executed Christ, is Lord of the world) would reveal to us that there is opposition to Jesus, even in America.
These are strong words and this cohort blog is meant to be a dialogue, so please respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)