eChurch Blog

Here’s another enjoyable little snippet from Tom Wright’s book ‘Surprised by Hope’ which I’m reading in between Diarmaid MacCulloch’s book: A History of Christianity – The First Three Thousand Years.

Pages 213 – 215 The Kingdom of God:

We have seen that at several points in this book that the normal Christian understanding of ‘kingdom’, especially of ‘kingdom of heaven’, is simply mistaken. ‘God’s kingdom’ and ‘kingdom of heaven’ mean the same thing: the sovereign rule of God (i.e. the rule of ‘heaven’, that is, of the one who lives in heaven), which according to Jesus was and is breaking in to the present world, to ‘earth’. That is what Jesus taught us to pray for. We have no right to omit that clause from the Lord’s prayer, or to suppose that it doesn’t really mean what it says.

This, as we have seen, is what the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and the gift of the Spirit, are all about. They are not designed to take us away from this earth, but to make us agents of the transformation of this earth, anticipating the day when, as promised, ‘the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea’. When the risen Jesus appears to his followers at the end of Matthew’s gospel, he declares that all authority on heaven and on earth has been given to him. When John the seer hears the thundering voices in heaven, they are singing, ‘the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he shall reign for ever and ever’. And the point of the gospels – of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, together with Acts – is that this has already begun.

The question of how it has begun – in what sense it is ‘inaugurated’, ‘anticpated’ or whatever – has been the stuff of debate for a long time. But part of the problem with that debate is that those taking part in it have not usually clarified the question of what precisely it is that is begun, launched or initiated. At one level it is clearly the hope of Israel, as expressed in classic ‘kingdom passages’ such as Isaiah 52:7-12. There, ‘God becoming king at last’ means the end of exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of Israel’s God to Zion. We can see all of that becoming the major theme, not only of Jesus’ life and public career, but of his own interpretation of his death.

But underneath that again, when we stand back, is the meaning of ‘God’s kingdom’ to which the hope of Israel was designed to contribute – or, to put it another way, the meaning because of which God called Israel in the first place. Faced with his beautiful and powerful creation in rebellion, God longed to set it right, to rescue it from continuing corruption and impeding chaos and to bring it back into order and fruitfulness. God longed, in other words, to re-establish his wise sovereignty over the whole creation, which would mean a great act of healing and rescue. he did not want to rescue humans from creation, any more than he wanted to rescue Israel from the Gentiles. He wanted to rescue Israel in order that Israel might be a light to the Gentiles, and he wanted thereby to rescue humans in order that humans might be his rescuing stewards over creation. That is the inner dynamic of the kingdom of God.

That, in other words, is how the God who made humans to be his stewards over creation, and who called Israel to be the light of the world, is to become king, in accordance with his original intention in creation on the one hand and his original intention in the covenant on the other. To snatch saved souls away to a disembodied ‘heaven’ would destroy the whole point. God is to become king of the whole world at last. And he will do this, not by declaring that the inner dynamic of creation (that it be ruled by humans) was a mistake, nor by declaring that the inner dynamic of his covenant (that Israel would be the means of saving the nations) was a failure, but by fulfilling them both. That is more or less what Paul’s letter to the Romans is all about.

This is the purpose that has been realised in Jesus Christ. One of the greatest problems of the western church, ever since the Reformation at least, is that it really hasn’t known what the gospels were there for. Imagining that the point of Christianity was to enable people to ‘go to heaven’, most western Christians have supposed that the mechanism by which this happened was the one they found in the writings of Paul (I stress, the one they found; I have argued elsewhere that this involved misunderstanding Paul as well), and that the four gospels were simply there to give back-up information about Jesus, his teaching, his moral example and his atoning death. This long tradition has screened out the possibility that when Jesus spoke of ‘God’s kingdom’ he wasn’t talking about a ‘heaven’ for which he was preparing his followers, but about something that was happening in and on the earth, through his work, then through his death and resurrection, and then through the Spirit-led work to which they would be called.

Tim Kimberley over at the Parchment and Pen blog, is featuring a series based on the top ten Biblical discoveries in archaeology.

As promised, I intend to link to them from here, and so here is the sixth offering, at number five on the list:

Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology – #5 The Crucified Man

Third part of Derek leman’s (Messianic Jewish Musings) excellent series:

Part 1 here, and part 2 here:

Jewish Roots and non-Jews, Part 3 by Derek leman

In Part 1, I described seven blessings of non-Jews discovering Judaism, Jewish roots, and the biblical (Hebrew Bible and New Testament) theology of Israel’s unique election and role in the redemption of the world. These blessings have also brought confusion and problems, with people confused about their identity. Does being a follower of Jesus (Yeshua) make someone a de facto Jew? An Israelite? An Ephraimite to be rejoined in the prophetic age to the Jews (the Judeans or Judaites)?

In Part 2, I considered two issues which must have bearing on identity, belonging, and roles. The first of these two issues is individualism versus communal identity. I discussed the problem of extreme individualism which makes it all to easy for people to deny their family and national identity and assume any identity they can get away with. The second, and more burning issue for most people caught up in these matters, is the subjective sense of calling balanced with universal principles. How do we value and listen to our subjective notions that God is calling us to a lifestyle choice?

There are many other issues that remain:

(1) What might the Church have looked like if it had developed without supersessionism (replacement theology) and anti-Semism and anti-nomianism (an over-reaction against law as the way of God)?

(2) How can non-Jews who desire a greater practice of Temple-Torah worship express themselves without becoming part of the problem (the virtual erasing of the remnant of Israel in Yeshua by people who deny any unique election and calling of Jewish people)?

(3) Is there a place in Messianic Judaism for non-Jews and if so, what is it? Within this issue, there is also the matter of existing Messianic Jewish communities in which non-Jews are already an integral part and where covenantal relationships of faith and love are already established.

I remind readers of a caveat I made in Part 2: Who will play God and answer these questions for other people? Not I. I am simply exploring these ideas and do not claim to be God’s authority in your life. Please interact with the ideas presented here and gain from them, without taking them as gospel.

Reimagining a Jewish-Friendly Christianity
Some people think that if the Church had developed with a full appreciation of its Jewish origins that Baptists and Catholics would be tzit-tzit-wearing Hasids.

While that picture may seem a bit silly, think about the un-nuanced, naive depictions of what the Church should be that come up in discussions by zealots for Jewish roots. There is a tendency to call any aspect of church culture which is not Jewish pagan.

Christmas trees are pagan, so they say. Let’s examine this foolish argument. People will say, “Derek, it is obvious that Christmas trees are pagan. Pagans of Germanic tribes and in other cultures worshipped trees. Jeremiah 10 speaks about idols carved from wood. High places of idolatry in the Bible often had cultic trees as mentioned in the narratives and prophets of the Hebrew Bible.”

Well, have you considered the following things, all done by pagans, which are somehow exempt while Christmas trees invite bitter invective:

–Pagans offered animals on altars to their gods.

–Pagans had sanctuaries remarkably like the one God commanded Moses to build.

–Pagans had fall feasts remarkable like Sukkot (Tabernacles) and spring festivals somewhat comparable to Passover.

–God did not completely forbid the use of hills and high places for worship, but demanded that sacrifice only be offered at a central shrine (but even for this he made exceptions such as with Samuel and Elijah).

–Pagans had calendars following the cycle of the moon.

–Pagans considered corpses and death unclean.

Okay, my big point is coming: if God can give his people customs and ways which are modified from pagan customs, how is it then inappropriate for Christians to adapt customs from their various national heritages and use them to glorify God?

Some people look at churches keeping Advent or Lent and shake their heads. Why can’t they just be biblical and follow the seasons of God’s calendar?

When and where does God demand this? Not only does the Pentateuch not demand that gentiles keep Jewish practices, but the New Testament speaks repeatedly of seasons which are not required of non-Jews.

The Church is the expression of the nations of following Yeshua. The Church is and should be based on the cultural expressions of its members directed toward God in worship through Yeshua.

Passover as an Exception
The one Jewish holiday that I think the Church is bound to, and which has been sadly lost, is Passover.

Yeshua passed down through the Last Supper the importance of re-casting Passover as a celebration of the redemption of Israel from Egypt and the redemption of the world through his death and resurrection.

He said, “as often as you do this.” He said, “remember me.”

He never instituted an “ordinance” of wine and bread separate from the larger context of Passover.

There is plenty of evidence, take 1 Corinthians 5 for example, that early Christians kept Passover. This is probably what was behind the Quarto-Deciman controversy between Asian bishops like Polycarp and Papias and other bishops who urged a Judaism-free practice.

But there is also evidence that the Pauline churches did not restrict their observance to once a year (see 1 Corinthians 11).

I think there is much freedom in the development and Passover for churches may look quite different than the modern Jewish customs, but I believe the Church needs to reclaim Passover. Some mainstream Jews will object and say this is “exclusive Jewish territory.” But Judaism has to recognize Christianity as its sister and not its enemy.

Christianity Without anti-Semitism
If we reimagine the Church as a Jewish-friendly institution, we will see many of those seven points I originally made part of church life. I offer a modified list that could be a picture of a Church that recognized from the beginning its Jewish heritage:

(1) The rejection of supersessionism (replacement theology).

(2) The rejection of anti-nomian reactions to God’s commandments.

(3) A discovery of and deep love for Passover.

(4) A much-increased and proper appreciation for the Pentateuch as the foundation of scripture.

(5) A realization and practical devotion to Jesus (Yeshua) as Israel’s Messiah.

(6) An affection for and better relationship with Judaism.

(7) A relationship of mutual blessing with the remnant of Israel in Yeshua, Messianic Judaism.

What Can Be Done If No Such Church Can Be Found?
Many readers have expressed their frustration at not having a Jewish-friendly church to attend. When worshipping with the churches in their area, they are frequently plagued by anti-Jewish statements from the pulpit (caricaturing the Pharisees, for example). They are saddened to see Passover come and go with no recognition.

I am talking right now about Christians who have not already been enculturated by the Gentile-Messianic-Congregation phenomenon. I am talking about philo-Semitic Christians who want a Jewish-friendly church.

I can offer the two following paths as legitimate options:

Remain in the local church, overlook insults, be a good influence, and supplement your education. You have wonderful options for supplementing your education and remaining close to your love for Jewish roots.

I recommend highly that you make use of materials produce by First Fruits of Zion. If you are not already familiar with FFOZ, check out their website at www.ffoz.org. The HaYesod Program is the best place to start, followed by Torah Club. If you have like-minded people in your church or in several churches, start a group together. But remain faithful to your church family. Be gracious and understanding about ingrained prejudices against Jewish things. Patiently stand up for Israel and Judaism. Your calm witness will help repair the world.

You can also join with local Messianic Jews for various holidays. Or join with local Jewish organizations for educational and community events. What will happen when Jewish groups see more and more Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Pentecostals showing up for the annual Kosher Festival or the Purim Parade?

Or . . .

If you have a group of like-minded people, start a Jewish-friendly congregation. Please don’t call it Messianic. You don’t really have to choose a label. People will get the idea that your church is different without needing some name as a clue. If you must use labels, I suppose Jewish-friendly or philo-Semitic sound a little geeky. Maybe “holistic biblical community.” Okay, geeky too.

Can anyone suggest possible labels?

I’d avoid “Hebraic” and “Zionist” as well, since these have connotations already of unhealthy trends. Sorry, but Christian Zionism is often unbalanced (not denying the positives in these groups, though) and Hebraic is a label that has already been used to erase Jewish distinctions and imply that non-Jews in Messiah are actually Israelites.

Discussing Choices
Given these two options, do you see more possibilities?

Which option appeals to you and why?

Do you think I have left something out or that I am wrong about something? I will put on my “be-nice-Derek” face and not beat up on people who comment sincerely and with the right tone for a discussion (but if you come on here with unfounded dogmatism and finger-pointing, I make no promises).

NEXT TIME: To what degree is it proper for non-Jews to “take hold” of Jewish practices if they desire it?

Well, as I posted a couple of days ago, Stephen Green the virulently anti-homosexual director of Christian Voice, has had his moment on prime time TV.

He used his appearance on the new Channel 4 programme, 4thought.tv, to attack gays and spread fear of Islam.

You can currently watch his performance on Channel 4 OD.

Stephen Green warns us of the “homosexual agenda” and the “homosexualisation” of society, in which we’re not reproducing ourselves except in the Muslim community. He says that gays are likened to dogs in the Book of Revelation, according to his interpretation of ancient Greek slang.

In his message of general societal woe and doom we are warned that this is a dying civilisation, which will duly be taken over by a strong Islam in 30 years.  He snorts that gays won’t like this very much….

Is this the Christian message to the world? Is this the hope and good news that Jesus came to earth for?

Sad and dreadfully awful.

Cross-post by Professor James F. McGrath of Exploring our Matrix:

Ken Ham has been getting a lot of critical attention from Christians recently – and that’s a good thing, since there is a lot he deserves to be criticized for from a Christian perspective. Internet Monk has linked to a scathing review of Ken Ham’s views from a Christian standpoint. The concluding note alone is worth the visit:

Some may excuse Mr. Ham on the ground that he has no theological or biblical training (he has a bachelor’s degree in applied science). I am not so inclined for one reason: by assuming the pulpit of churches and declaring he intends to interpret the Bible, he de facto sets himself up as a Bible teacher, and should be held accountable to know not only the relevant facts, but the proper way to exegete and teach a passage of scripture. If he does not want to give up seven years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars to get training in the Bible, theology, and the ancient languages (the standard degree program for clergy) then that is perfectly understandable. What is not so understandable is his desire to set himself up as a Bible teacher without getting Bible training.

Amen! That’s one reason why, as much as I applaud Rachel Held Evans’ eirenic approach on one level, on another I think that the best course of action is for those who are well-informed about the Bible to debunk, refute and if necessary ‘refudiate’ the statements of those who have no expertise in any field of scholarship related to the Bible, and yet believe that without any real knowledge of the original languages, historical context, and other relevant factors, their pontifications will do anything but harm the souls of believers and the Christian faith itself.

Nevertheless, she is absolutely right that Ham has exalted his own dubious young-earth creationist views above concern for other Christians, and is willing to harm the latter in his vain attempts at defending the former. And I certainly encourage everyone to read her response to Ken Ham on her blog. And I’m looking forward to reading her book!

One final point. I must point out that this time, P. Z. Myers has got it completely wrong. The musical adaptation of Ken Ham speaking that he shared is not rightly called an “Anti-Symphony of Science.” It needs to be called a “Symphony of Anti-Science” or perhaps better still an “Anti-Symphony of Anti-Science,” although I hesitate to put it that way in case the double negative somehow makes a positive.

I was about to post our weekly dose of psychobabble, however, it was such a negative piece entitled Religiosity and Neuroscience, in which the author bangs on about the correlations between anxiety, serotonin and religiosity.

We’ve already recently covered some of this ground and I note the author doesn’t mention the possibility that the same correlations may be found in varying degrees of atheism.

Anyway, in view of this I’ve decided to feature a nice philosophy piece this week instead:

One of my jobs as a teacher of bright, mostly Catholic undergraduates is to get them thinking about why they hold their religious beliefs.  It’s easy enough to spark discussion about the problem of evil (“Can you really read the newspaper everyday and continue to believe in an all-perfect God?”) or about the diversity of religious beliefs (“If you’d been born in Saudi Arabia, don’t you think you’d be a Muslim?”).  Inevitably, however, the discussion starts to fizzle when someone raises a hand and says (sometimes ardently, sometimes smugly) “But aren’t you forgetting about faith?”

That seems to be enough for most students.  The trump card has been played, and they — or at least the many who find religion more a comfort than a burden — happily remember that believing means never having to explain why.

I myself, the product of a dozen years of intellectually self-confident Jesuit education, have little sympathy with the “it’s just faith” response.  “How can you say that?” I reply.  “You wouldn’t buy a used car just because you had faith in what the salesperson told you.  Why would you take on faith far more important claims about your eternal salvation?”  And, in fact, most of my students do see their faith not as an intellectually blind leap but as grounded in evidence and argument.

“Well, if there’s no God,” they say, “how can you explain why anything at all exists or why the world is governed by such precise laws of nature?”

At this point, the class perks up again as I lay out versions of the famous arguments for the existence of God, and my students begin to think that they’re about to get what their parents have paid for at a great Catholic university: some rigorous intellectual support for their faith.

Soon enough, however, things again fall apart, since our best efforts to construct arguments along the traditional lines face successive difficulties.  The students realize that I’m not going to be able to give them a convincing proof, and I let them in on the dirty secret: philosophers have never been able to find arguments that settle the question of God’s existence or any  of the other “big questions” we’ve been discussing for 2500 years.

Continue

Here’s another enjoyable little snippet from Tom Wright’s book ‘Surprised by Hope’ which I’m reading in between Diarmaid MacCulloch’s book: A History of Christianity – The First Three Thousand Years.

Chapter 6 – What the whole world’s waiting for – God’s future plan:

The victorious battle – page 110-111

The first letter to the Corinthians then continues with a quite different image, one not so organically related to the natural order of creation, but with many Biblical antecedents: that of a king establishing his kingdom by subduing all possible enemies.

Paul is careful to stress both that Jesus will rule until every single power in the cosmos has been subjected to him, and that God the father is not included in that category. Whatever we say about the implied Christology of this passage, Paul is clearly articulating a theology of a new creation. Every force, every authority in the whole cosmos will be subjected to the Messiah; and finally death itself will give up its power. In other words, that which we are tempted to regard as the permanent state of the cosmos – entropy, threatening chaos and dissolution – will be transformed by the Messiah, acting as an agent of the creator God. If evolutionary optimism is squelched by, amongst other things, the sober estimates of the scientist that the universe as we know it today is running out of steam and cannot last forever, the gospel of Jesus Christ announces that what God did for Jesus at Easter he will do, not only for all those who are ‘in Christ’, but for the entire cosmos. It will be an act of new creation, parallel to and derived from the act of new creation when God raised Jesus from the dead.

Here we find, coming in to full view, one of the direct results of saying that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead, rather than saying that upon his death he began to exist in a new, non-bodily mode. As I have argued elsewhere, if after his death he had gone into some kind of non-bodily existence, death would not be defeated. it would remain intact; it would merely be re-described. Jesus, humankind and the world itself could not look forward to any future within a created and embodied mode such as we know. But this is precisely what Paul is denying. Death is the last enemy, not a good part of the good creation; and therefore death must be defeated if the life-giving God is to be honoured as the true Lord of the world. When this has happened, and only then, Jesus the Messiah, the Lord of the world, will hand over the rule of the kingdom to his father, and God will be all in all.

Here’s a few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Biblicus Semitae – Taking a Break From the Lord’s Work

Jerusalem Post – Beer and Bible promote Israel’s cultural future

Ekklesia – Turning the Bible into a weapon against the ‘other’

Examiner – Prince Charles expects to save the world

Practical Shepherding – How can any church member minister to his/her pastor?

ASSIST – Mass Arrest of New Christian Converts in Iran

EveryDay Christian – How to Receive the Desires of Your Heart

The Saint Barnabas’ Blog – Catholicism: extreme or normative?

Protect the Pope – Director General of the BBC talks about his Catholic faith

Voice of the Copts – Turkey Building 10 Meter High Wall inside Jerusalem

Forum18 – RUSSIA: Baptist and Jehovah’s Witness worship services raided

Two similar tales of Christian academics faring poorly within academia.

The first from the UK:

Harry’s Place

The Daily Telegraph carries a depressing story today about Dr Tali Argov, a Jewish Israeli lecturer at Oxford who claims she was discriminated against after converting to Christianity:

Continue

The second from the US:

Cranmer’s Curate

Though Professor Kenneth Howell has just been reinstated by the University of Illinois after his dismissal for defending Catholic moral teaching to students, his case has major implications for academic freedom. It is surely optimistic to believe that he will be the last academic in the US or the UK to fall foul of a ‘hate speech’ complaint.

If universities in the US and UK start firing academics for sins of speech against political correctness, consider what they would have to do with some of the texts that are taught on their courses. Here is an extract from John Le Carre’s classic novel, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, first published in 1963:

Continue

Over the weekend we had this “news” relating to the Church of England:

Telegraph:

Leading traditionalists in the Church of England have pledged to stay within the Church to defeat the current plan for the introduction of women bishops, but have admitted they are “not united”.

A letter sent by 15 bishops on the Anglo-Catholic wing concedes that some clergy and lay people will now convert to the Roman Catholic Church after they suffered a defeat at a critical meeting.

But it goes on to say that others will chose to remain in the Church of England, despite their opposition to women joining the episcopate, some because of “family loyalties” or even “financial necessity”.

Continue

So basically the threatened mass exodus is not happening currently. What a shocker!

The Church Mouse has posted a copy of the letter and cites three reasons why this is non-news and doesn’t matter and three reasons why it might.

My favourite analysis comes from Fr Hugh Jass (classic name) in his usual humorous and perceptive style:

Bishops “may not leave” Shock!

In a shock move, thousands of Anglican clergy have decided not to leave the Church of England, it was disclosed today. Fifteen “traditionalist” Bishops have issued a devastating letter proclaiming their decision (perhaps) to stay (or go). This move may rock the Anglican Communion, which was preparing itself to be decimated by thousands not leaving. Announcing their decision about not knowing what to do, the Bishops said “Those who are not actively seeking a home elsewhere must work to defeat the currently proposed legislation” (about women bishops).

Those deciding not to move (or go) have been engaged in important discussions since women were ordained in 1992. This hasn’t given the Bishops enough time to consider whether or not they are Anglicans. They will need until, at least, 2014 to decide what they are. After women have been consecrated, the “traditionalists” will then need to consider theological issues like their pensions and financial compensation, or whether moving to the Ordinariate will be too difficult. A vital part of Anglican “patrimony” is the ability not to know what one believes. This important aspect will be banned in the Ordinariate where people will be told what they are.