 |
| Paul Says Hello |
Read Romans 1 – ESV, The Message
There are three things I want to point out from Paul’s opening (1-7):
Friday, August 31, 2012
Obedience of Faith for the Sake of His Name: Romans 1:1-7
Read Romans 1 – ESV, The Message
There are three things I want to point out from Paul’s opening (1-7):
Romans 1-4: Life Before Jesus the Messiah
Romans 1-4 provides the opening summation of all
Paul attempts to tell the Roman Christians. He gives the summarized version of
his entire message in one- or two-verse nutshells spread over all four chapters.
1:16-17 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
2:6, 13 – He will render to each one according to his works. … For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
2:28-29 - For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
3:21-24 - But now the righteousness of God has been made manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it – the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is not distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ….
4:13-15 - For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
I will make my way through each part of these four chapters in the next few weeks.
1:16-17 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
2:6, 13 – He will render to each one according to his works. … For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
2:28-29 - For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
3:21-24 - But now the righteousness of God has been made manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it – the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is not distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ….
4:13-15 - For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
I will make my way through each part of these four chapters in the next few weeks.
Friday, August 24, 2012
N. T. Wright and Romans for the 21st Century
This week I have been listening to the “Romans in a Week” lecture series by N.T. Wright that my father-in-law gave me a few months ago. Needless to say, I bumped it up to the front of my queue (past 955 tracks, 330 hours of music podcasts and lectures – I know, I’m a hoarder). Listening through it I find myself both sad and excited.
I am sad because I thought (though am embarrassed to admit) I had come up with something new or, to say it better, realized something lost: Romans is written not as a systematic theology but to make peace between two groups, the Jews and Gentiles who are fighting over who are the true children of God.
Wrong.
Almost everything I have been teaching in the Romans class on Sundays was taught in a better style and with more scholarship and depth – he even reads the Greek from memory – by Wright in this series.
Doh!
Tim Spivey this week wrote a post “Theological Cartography Syndrome” meaning the inability to think critically about our favorite theologian(s). That worried me. Am I following Wright without critique? At this point I realized I did not come to these conclusions because I read or listened to N.T. Wright. I came to these conclusions before I listened to these lectures. Huzzah! I agree with Wright because we read and teach Romans the same way – as ancient history. It has a cultural context which must be addressed before we attempt to make sense of the text. This is what I (woefully) have tried to do in my posts so far – describe the history and mindset of the Jews and Gentiles in Rome reading Paul’s letter for the first time.
Where my work differs from N.T. Wright (at least in this series) is that I want to go beyond mere exegesis and look at a new way to apply Romans today. I wish to compare the 1st Century to the 21st Century. I see many parallels between the Jews then and Churched Christians now which Wright may not agree with. This task is fraught with peril, for I realize there are not one-to-one equal comparatives between these two groups and it is uncomfortable to place yourself in the cross hairs of Paul’s rhetorical arguments; however, the similarities are too great to dismiss. What I wright will be similar to Wright’s findings. But know that these things come from me, not from a devotion to N. T. Wright.
This is why I have entitled the study Romans for the 21st Century. Just as Paul radically challenged the Jews and Gentiles of the 1st Century to live united together in Rome I want to challenge those who wish to obey God inside and outside of a church in the 21st Century to live united together wherever we live. ('united together' was intentional)
 |
| Why must you spoil my fun, N.T. Wright? |
I am sad because I thought (though am embarrassed to admit) I had come up with something new or, to say it better, realized something lost: Romans is written not as a systematic theology but to make peace between two groups, the Jews and Gentiles who are fighting over who are the true children of God.
Wrong.
Almost everything I have been teaching in the Romans class on Sundays was taught in a better style and with more scholarship and depth – he even reads the Greek from memory – by Wright in this series.
Doh!
Tim Spivey this week wrote a post “Theological Cartography Syndrome” meaning the inability to think critically about our favorite theologian(s). That worried me. Am I following Wright without critique? At this point I realized I did not come to these conclusions because I read or listened to N.T. Wright. I came to these conclusions before I listened to these lectures. Huzzah! I agree with Wright because we read and teach Romans the same way – as ancient history. It has a cultural context which must be addressed before we attempt to make sense of the text. This is what I (woefully) have tried to do in my posts so far – describe the history and mindset of the Jews and Gentiles in Rome reading Paul’s letter for the first time.
My Task: Romans Applied for the 21st Century
Where my work differs from N.T. Wright (at least in this series) is that I want to go beyond mere exegesis and look at a new way to apply Romans today. I wish to compare the 1st Century to the 21st Century. I see many parallels between the Jews then and Churched Christians now which Wright may not agree with. This task is fraught with peril, for I realize there are not one-to-one equal comparatives between these two groups and it is uncomfortable to place yourself in the cross hairs of Paul’s rhetorical arguments; however, the similarities are too great to dismiss. What I wright will be similar to Wright’s findings. But know that these things come from me, not from a devotion to N. T. Wright.
This is why I have entitled the study Romans for the 21st Century. Just as Paul radically challenged the Jews and Gentiles of the 1st Century to live united together in Rome I want to challenge those who wish to obey God inside and outside of a church in the 21st Century to live united together wherever we live. ('united together' was intentional)
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Letter to the Romans: Summarized #Romfor21stC
Romans can be summarized into four sections:
1. Romans 1-4: Life Before Jesus the Messiah
2. Romans 5-8: Life In Jesus the Messiah
3. Romans 9-11: Life Unified in Jesus the Messiah
4. Romans 12-16: Life Together in Jesus the Messiah
I feel these four parts build the entire message Paul wishes to give: the true children of God are not defined by their membership of a tribe, group or church. They are known by their actions.
1. Life Before Jesus the Messiah
Because the Gentiles suppressed the knowledge of God and became unrighteous, God chose Abraham’s descendants (the Jews) and gave them the Law of Moses to train them to become his ambassadors. They boasted in their election and disregarded the Law instead. So Jesus came to fulfill the Law and bring all the peoples of the world together in one election. Having not understood their first calling, the Jews misunderstood their second calling – requiring the Jewish rite of election and the Law of Moses for the Gentiles. Paul must remind them that the Law is no longer valid – though still upheld – and their election is no longer exclusive – though still relevant.
2. Life In Jesus the Messiah
The Law of Moses, though given by God, had a weakness. No one could obey it perfectly. Because the father of all, Adam, sinned all suffer the consequences – death – which comes as a result of sin. The Law of Moses, once intended to be the Jews’ guide for righteousness, became chains to the cycle of sin and sacrifice. Jesus took away this weakness by both perfectly following the Law’s requirements and becoming the sacrifice which took away our chains. He became a new Adam and all can enjoy the consequences – freedom – not to sin but to live as adopted children with grace covering our sins. This freedom cannot be taken away from us no matter what!
3. Life Unified in Jesus the Messiah
God (and Paul) still longs for the time that Israel returns to its first love. God invested so much in them that he does not wish for them to stay estranged. God’s election extends to Gentiles; however, if they fall into the same mindset as the Jews He would remove them and reinstate the Jews. God called the Gentiles with an ulterior motive – to cause jealousy within in the Jews so they would return. Then God would have his true Israel – a nation of Jews and Gentiles reconciling the world to God. What a God!
4. Life Together in Jesus the Messiah
Both the Gentiles and the Jews have a role in God’s kingdom – so bring out the best in each other. Love your neighbor as yourself. Be responsible citizens. Be tolerant of other believers and correct their misconceptions in love. Stay away from those who want to become one-trick ponies. Remember that God’s kingdom is not physical only. Let God’s service be your purpose in life. Then all will rejoice in God once and for all – no more as outsiders and insiders but as God’s children! May we all work together to accomplish that goal!
Friday, August 17, 2012
Defining 'Gentile' in the 21st Century #Romfor21stC
One of the most frequent questions I get from people when
discussing Romans for the 21st Century is the question, “Who are the
Gentiles of today?” This question is very difficult to answer, if it is
answerable at all. The reason is multi-faceted as you will see.
The Jew-Gentile construct was of Jewish origin.
Used countless times in the Bible, the term ‘Gentile’ simply
means, “a person who is not Jewish.” In essence, it means “not one of us.” If someone
were to ask a Roman if they were a Gentile they would probably look quizzical
and wonder what was wrong with you. ‘Gentile’ was “insider-language,” a word
that only had meaning within Jewish culture. Paul would write to people very
familiar with Jewish culture and therefore would make sense. But to talk about
Gentiles today would be the same as asking, “Who are the people who are not one
of us?”
The idea of the ‘other’ is not accepted today.
One of the most important aspects of learning to live and
work cross-culturally is the understanding that no one is the ‘other,’
especially those around you. It is this barrier which prevents contact, sharing
and relationships and foments ill-will, hatred and even violence. Churches unwittingly
do this when discussing ‘Christians’ vs. ‘the world.’ Within Christian context
that makes sense, the ‘world’ representing everything that does not help us
love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. However, to everyone that is not
part of your church it sounds like you are equating them with Satan. No one who
tries to be a good person thinks they are Satan and they would resent anyone
who would put them in the same category. So attempting to find who are the Gentiles
today would insult those who might be labeled 'Gentile.'
The categories of ‘Jew’ and ‘Gentile’ are irrelevant to salvation
and righteousness.
Paul’s major idea is the true children of God are
not defined by their membership of a tribe, group or church. They are known by
their actions. So to attempt to
revive the debate is to misunderstand the reason Paul wrote to the Romans in
the first place. Paul wants both sides to stop arguing over who are God’s children
and help each other obey God through faith in Jesus.
Best possible answer:
Because this concept is essential to understanding the book of Romans in the 21st Century, I will use the terms, ‘Churched’
and ‘Unchurched.’ These are words which are more closely associated with what I
am attempting to show through these posts and do not have an air of “holy” vs. “profane”
which plagues ‘Christians’ vs. ‘the World.’ ‘Churched’ will mean those who
consider themselves as part of a church – whether a denominational or
non-denominational church. If you meet on Sundays (or are part of a
church that meets on Sunday) you are churched. ‘Unchurched’ will stand
for those who do not consider themselves as part of a church – which they call ‘organized
religion.’ Any further attempt to define this group is an minefield and becomes a tedious exercise in hairsplitting.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Reading Romans Requires More than One Verse #Romfor21stC
One of the challenges in reading Romans is the complex nature of Paul’s writing. Since he discusses complex issues of identify he is very thorough and takes a lot of space to delineate his points. This letter is not the only time he discusses the matter of Jew vs. Gentile. Galatians mentions the Jews and the Law of Moses specifically. 1 Corinthians and Colossians mentions judging others – possible allusions to the Jews as well. As “an apostle to the Gentiles“ (11:13) he is on the front lines in the Jew vs. Gentile battle of the time.
This complexity challenges the verse-by-verse nature of Christianity today. Think about it. When was the last time someone asked you, “What is your favorite paragraph in the Bible?” When ministers read long sections of scripture, they must first apologize or excuse themselves. In fact, when was the last time you listened to an entire sermon where only one, large section scripture was discussed? Verses are short, easy to memorize and fit easily on motivational posters.
A few years ago I decided not to read anything smaller than a paragraph in a lesson. I also decided, with a few exceptions, to speak from only one section of scripture. By focusing on one section I now go deeper into the Word of God. Romans exemplifies the benefits of focused reading, reading more prevents being bogged down in the details. In other words: the meaning of Romans is in the letter – if you read enough of it.
Paul states, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). This verse may be the most quoted verses without any context ever given. Paul writes this as one part of a much larger discussion acclimating the Jews and Gentiles to the understanding that the true children of God are not defined by their membership of a tribe, group or church. They are known by their actions. Both groups had unrighteous and righteous members. Because of Abraham (and the disobedience of the Gentiles) God chose the Jews to be His ambassadors to the world. They failed due to their own disobedience and inability to keep God’s law. God then called the Gentiles to join his ambassadors to the world. However, the Jews still had a special place in God’s heart and He longed for them to all choose to follow Him again. This is why God tells Israel,
This complexity challenges the verse-by-verse nature of Christianity today. Think about it. When was the last time someone asked you, “What is your favorite paragraph in the Bible?” When ministers read long sections of scripture, they must first apologize or excuse themselves. In fact, when was the last time you listened to an entire sermon where only one, large section scripture was discussed? Verses are short, easy to memorize and fit easily on motivational posters.
 |
| Romans: doesn't fit on a motivational poster. |
A few years ago I decided not to read anything smaller than a paragraph in a lesson. I also decided, with a few exceptions, to speak from only one section of scripture. By focusing on one section I now go deeper into the Word of God. Romans exemplifies the benefits of focused reading, reading more prevents being bogged down in the details. In other words: the meaning of Romans is in the letter – if you read enough of it.
Paul states, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). This verse may be the most quoted verses without any context ever given. Paul writes this as one part of a much larger discussion acclimating the Jews and Gentiles to the understanding that the true children of God are not defined by their membership of a tribe, group or church. They are known by their actions. Both groups had unrighteous and righteous members. Because of Abraham (and the disobedience of the Gentiles) God chose the Jews to be His ambassadors to the world. They failed due to their own disobedience and inability to keep God’s law. God then called the Gentiles to join his ambassadors to the world. However, the Jews still had a special place in God’s heart and He longed for them to all choose to follow Him again. This is why God tells Israel,
Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. Deuteronomy 7:9-10
When Christians, especially theologians, read Romans in short, choppy sections and dissect the minute details in each verse they miss the message Paul gives.
Friday I will look into one place where this is a glaring problem: who are the Gentiles today?
Friday, August 10, 2012
Preaching and Teaching in the Time of Facebook - A Heartfelt Apology and Overdue Results from a Survey
In the Spring of 2011 I took a course entitled Church in the Age of Facebook where we completed a project in a certain area of study. I chose church education and using online content to supplement/replace local, spoken content. With the help of others, especially a good friend Carrie DuShey, I put together a nice survey. I let my Facebook friends know about it. I got 12 responses. In somewhat desperation I emailed several Christian bloggers and asked if they would place a link on their blogs for their readers. Scot McKnight, editor of Jesus Creed, one of my favorite blogs that often links to other great content, was the only one to take me up on the offer. This generated over 300 clicks and 200 completed surveys – enough to justify the entire project and I got an A for the class. He hoped I would share with him the results.
But I didn't.
To be honest, that time in our lives was so hectic I mostly forgot about the survey and what he did for me. I finished a quarter of school on a Saturday and we moved to Northern California the next day. We looked for jobs for a few months and have been working since September. We have been scraping by and I have not had the time/money to finish the final four courses to complete my degree.
And I have forgotten Fuller.
It seems like a distant, foreign memory. Like some kind of phase in my life which is over. It both saddens and scares me. Sad because I want to take what I learned and go forward. Scared because I spent so much time and effort and yet it escaped so quickly.
However, that is not an excuse.
I dropped the ball. I'm sorry, Scot. You went to bat for me and I let you down.
So, 14 months later I wish to rectify my wrong by sharing the outcome of my survey.
The unedited survey results. It is long and somewhat tedious.
The full project paper. It is also long and somewhat tedious. However, it also includes my discussion of trends found in secular education and connects the two.
I'll split what I learned into two headings: Things I Already Knew and Things that Surprised Me.
Most of the people who took the survey came from Jesus Creed and so the results about reading blogs were expected – 80% visit daily or more. 3/4ths of McKnight’s readers are male and also very educated – 57% have post-graduate degrees.
Half attend some type of in-person sermon or lecture weekly.
More people felt websites and podcasts they read/listen to helped them learn more about God, the Bible and how they fit into this world. I should put this in a pseudo-category “Things I figured but didn’t know.” I control what websites and podcasts I frequent. I can’t change the minister’s sermon.
When asked if in-person lessons help give purpose to their life less people “agreed” than “strongly agreed.”
Denominational affiliation was at the bottom of both lists of important aspects of both in-person and electronic messages. “Challenges me to think” came in first both times. This could be because Scot’s blog is inter-denominational or could be a shift in the Christian-cultural landscape. I hope for the latter, but that is more of an opinion than fact.
People seek in-person sermons to connect to others. They seek electronic lessons to learn from broader perspectives.
Most people considered their blog’s audience to be friends and family. But they wanted their audience to be challenged in their thinking and connect to their views while being exposed to different views. I’m not sure why this was surprising, but it was.
If you are a minister – think of your sermons and classes more as a place to connect people to each other since blogs often cannot do this, being removed from the reader’s life. Encourage the learning of facts to be done outside of class.
Encourage your members to seek out helpful materials to bring to class. Your role is more like an editor on Wikipedia instead of the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica – an expert curator instead of an authoritative gatekeeper. Help understand what is going on outside instead of preventing it from ever getting in.
If you are not a minister – don’t be afraid to go outside your group to learn. And don’t be afraid to bring what you read and learn back to your group.
My only fear is that due to the single-blog source of traffic that this does not give an accurate view of churches today. If only the minister reads blogs and listens to podcasts then the minister must connect the member to the both Word of God and each other. However, I think if Christian ministers were to start openly asking members to contribute by bringing in posts it might start a snowball effect.
Many thanks goes out to Scot McKnight and his readers for helping me out in this project. I could not have done it without you. And Carrie – I’m sorry we haven’t kept in better contact.
What do you think? Leave a comment here or on Facebook.
But I didn't.
To be honest, that time in our lives was so hectic I mostly forgot about the survey and what he did for me. I finished a quarter of school on a Saturday and we moved to Northern California the next day. We looked for jobs for a few months and have been working since September. We have been scraping by and I have not had the time/money to finish the final four courses to complete my degree.
And I have forgotten Fuller.
It seems like a distant, foreign memory. Like some kind of phase in my life which is over. It both saddens and scares me. Sad because I want to take what I learned and go forward. Scared because I spent so much time and effort and yet it escaped so quickly.
However, that is not an excuse.
I dropped the ball. I'm sorry, Scot. You went to bat for me and I let you down.
So, 14 months later I wish to rectify my wrong by sharing the outcome of my survey.
The unedited survey results. It is long and somewhat tedious.
The full project paper. It is also long and somewhat tedious. However, it also includes my discussion of trends found in secular education and connects the two.
I'll split what I learned into two headings: Things I Already Knew and Things that Surprised Me.
Things I Already Knew
Most of the people who took the survey came from Jesus Creed and so the results about reading blogs were expected – 80% visit daily or more. 3/4ths of McKnight’s readers are male and also very educated – 57% have post-graduate degrees.
Half attend some type of in-person sermon or lecture weekly.
More people felt websites and podcasts they read/listen to helped them learn more about God, the Bible and how they fit into this world. I should put this in a pseudo-category “Things I figured but didn’t know.” I control what websites and podcasts I frequent. I can’t change the minister’s sermon.
Things that Surprised Me
When asked if in-person lessons help give purpose to their life less people “agreed” than “strongly agreed.”
Denominational affiliation was at the bottom of both lists of important aspects of both in-person and electronic messages. “Challenges me to think” came in first both times. This could be because Scot’s blog is inter-denominational or could be a shift in the Christian-cultural landscape. I hope for the latter, but that is more of an opinion than fact.
People seek in-person sermons to connect to others. They seek electronic lessons to learn from broader perspectives.
Most people considered their blog’s audience to be friends and family. But they wanted their audience to be challenged in their thinking and connect to their views while being exposed to different views. I’m not sure why this was surprising, but it was.
Conclusions
If you are a minister – think of your sermons and classes more as a place to connect people to each other since blogs often cannot do this, being removed from the reader’s life. Encourage the learning of facts to be done outside of class.
Encourage your members to seek out helpful materials to bring to class. Your role is more like an editor on Wikipedia instead of the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica – an expert curator instead of an authoritative gatekeeper. Help understand what is going on outside instead of preventing it from ever getting in.
If you are not a minister – don’t be afraid to go outside your group to learn. And don’t be afraid to bring what you read and learn back to your group.
My only fear is that due to the single-blog source of traffic that this does not give an accurate view of churches today. If only the minister reads blogs and listens to podcasts then the minister must connect the member to the both Word of God and each other. However, I think if Christian ministers were to start openly asking members to contribute by bringing in posts it might start a snowball effect.
Many thanks goes out to Scot McKnight and his readers for helping me out in this project. I could not have done it without you. And Carrie – I’m sorry we haven’t kept in better contact.
What do you think? Leave a comment here or on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)