Chapter 3--The Economic Angle

In the blogosphere, it appears as if I've taken a one-year sabbatical. If I said I used that time in a consistently productive manner, I'd be lying.
Just finished chapter 3 tonight. Of significance for me was the latter half of the chapter on land: Its gift & responsibility. Here's what I appreciate:

Worship of this God was not some mythical or ethereal matter, but it was literally 'earthy'. If worship is merely devotional, there's not much to show for that. If worship is a recognition of God's acts in history, there is something to be said of that. But if one adds to their worship--and ethical behavior for that matter--that God is Lord over all the earth, and has given you a spot in it as in inheritor--then it becomes immensely important.
The weather here is windy, mostly dry, with high temperatures in the 50s. Farmers are capitalizing on this, and the harvest is in full swing. I'm not a farmer--I'm not even a good gardener!--but as I was reading this, I was wondering: If a local farmer read this book, what would he think of some of the ethical stances/principles noted? Here's what I think they might take notice to:

1--Times have changed. It seems as if no one leaves their land fallow unless they're getting paid for it. We're not leaving the edges of our fields for the unfortunate to glean from; most of us don't even know who the 'unfortunate' are. And we are certainly not hiring people to work the fields.
2--Worship of the 'timeless'. Even if those practices seem dated and impractical today, God's people are still left to consider the land as gift & responsibility. Wright says, "Covenantal loyalty required submission across the whole realm of human life on earth, on the farm as much as the altar."

Our next big holiday is Thanksgiving. Even though I'm not a farmer (did I say that already?), the chapter has caused me to ask:
1--How can I give God my 'firstfruits'?
2--What does 'harvest' look like for me?
3--Gift & responsibility go hand in hand with the land. Can that principle apply to other areas in my life?

Sorry if this disjointed and such...hopefully I'll find a rhythm as we go along.
Can't wait to hear on your end what you're picking up!

Jesus' Purpose(driven-Jesusness)

pg. 14 "If the main purpose of Jesus' ministry was to die on the cross, as the outworking of an abstracted atonement-theology, it starts to look as though he simply took on the establishment in order to get himself crucified, so that the abstract sacrificial theology could be put into effect. This makes both ministry and death look like sheer contrivance."

I really appreciated this because it gives better language for refuting why Jesus' life/purpose can't be looked at one-dimensionally. Also, if this is the case then what we really have in Jesus is someone who covertly went around pissing people off to achieve the means to His end, which allowed for his resurrection. This makes the kingdom of God a worthless endeavor, because it then only becomes lip service for an awkward faux-subversive attempt to poke at people's frustrations and become the victim. He is like a kid who decides taking on the Hot Topic lifestyle is the fastest way to piss off his parents so that he can say that his life is horrible and his parents don't understand him. If this is the divine, then I want my tithe money back!

This quote also reminds me of those who push the fulfilled prophecies angle hard. When we limit His life to winning God's scavenger hunt before the other wanna-be Messiahs, then we approach a different level of contrivance.

It comes back to a need to seek after a comprehensive understanding that leaves open possibilities for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As he says, the more he studies the more he comes across those aspects of Jesus that make him uncomfortable. I think this is exactly where we should be found. If we are not the Camel trying to get through the eye of the needle, we have embraced the wrong Gospel and the wrong Jesus. I believe a necessary part of discipleship that we should all be embracing includes a continual openness to being "transformed by the renewing of your mind." God's word is not finite. It still needs to be taught and breathed in daily.

History and Contextual Understanding

From pg. 5 as well "What we say bout Jesus is thus inextricably intertwined with what we say about he first century as a whole."

and 6 "...the historical jigsaw must portray Jesus as a credible and recognizable first-century Jew, relating comprehensibly in speech and action to other first-century Jews. No solution which claims to be talking about history can ever undo this basic move."

As we talked about today in some detail, this is something that has really been brewing on my mind for quite a while. We are reading this in such specific consequences and it seems like there should be a disclaimer before any time the Bible is opened or anyone speaks to a gathering of people that these are the reflections of a _______ century person from ______ who makes $____ a year(and this list could obviously continue on). There needs to be a responsibility in understanding how much that influences us and I just do not feel like that is there. We pick the verses that we want to make up our interpretation of God/Jesus/etc. and go with it. I am definitely no different, so I greatly appreciate his seeking to go through the different groups and get to the bottom of what each "stood to gain" by preaching/teaching a certain way. While in some cases this is obviously more tangible, in other's it can be just as poisonous.

I believe there are many people that truly believe that they revere the Lord, but it is not very comprehensive. The Bible is misused often and I think the only good approach should be one of humility because of this. Often many churches seek to have as their first core value or belief that their view is that the Bible is inerrant. It's only a shame that their interpretation does not often match this same enthusiasm. While it is easy to make these remarks and get Amen's from folks, it is rare that you will find the same humility in preaching from something inerrant. It's weird, because the more I seem to become more liberal in my ideology from what I grew up with, the more reverent I find myself becoming towards the Bible as I learn of its complexities. Certainly this is not a tenet of the more liberal, though!(tongue right on the ole' cheek)

In all of this also, it makes me nervous how so many churches seem to miss out on what seems to be basic. He is not the founder of Christianity, He did not live simply to "save souls," and he did not live simply to teach us to "save souls." It is a weird place to be to realize that much of what I've lived with my entire life is not biblical in the sense of being a comprehensive rather than piecemeal understanding. I was on the fast track to the pearly gates, but then I began uncovering God. There are many veils today that need to be torn as well!

I'm sorry if this is so scatter-brained, but I've had many inner dialogues of all these different ideas and it is something that is still a little unsettling. To be in the minority of a group in America that is on the verge of becoming a minority(Christians, that is), is an odd place to be. I always felt a little different than others, but now it's almost as if much of our vocabulary is completely different.

So these are my thoughts. Please feel free to add your thoughts to this. You obviously deal this in a personal way with this being in your church. I'm in the quiet, bean-counter department which has nothing to do with the ministry so I'm more on the outskirts of it all. I just get my weekly vaccine!

Part 1 Introduction--'Jesus Then & Now'

Let me first open with this: While I have no prior education on The Jesus Seminar, the works of Mack or Crossan, I enjoy reading Wright's critique. My aim, as is yours, is not to digest everything in Wright's bibliography, rather to get a running dialogue going so that, upon the conference, we can keep up! I trust this blog will help us do that.

That said, I feel like I can't write a whole lot yet about his textual criticisms of other books. Can I just briefly note some items that struck me in Jesus Then & Now:

1) The first thing I underlined in pg 5 is at the bottom: "...it has been realized that Jesus must be understood in his Jewish context." We would certainly agree...but then to read about the Seminar, and even a few hundred years ago with the movements of the Reformers, it's been made apparent that many people have failed to do this. After reading NTPG, I can't read the Synoptic Gospels the same anymore. I don't understand it all (!), but I understand the impetus to read him in contect.
2) Wright's brief description of the Reformers movement reminded me that I have many reasons to thank them...and to be critical as well. Pg 14: "The reformers had very thorough answers to the question 'why did Jesus die?'; they did not have nearly such good answers to the question 'why did Jesus live?' I must agree. Some of the key doctrines that we believe today concerning the Atonement, Salvation, Sanctification, & such were formulated & articulated during the Reformation. When I think back to the beginning of my faith journey, I feel like I have them to thank.
As I get older, however, I find that my sanctification--my answer to the question 'how now shall I live?'--is based on Jesus life and ministry. And that is further enriched when I read Jesus in his appropriate Jewish context.

Hereafter referred as...

I've decided in honor of our esteemed Bishop that I will post my more scholarly observations as you normally regard me...J.D. However, for my more whimsical and "loose" observations, I will go by Dave. It's only fitting....

Birth Pangs!

Hey just got an email...my book has shipped! Delivery should be late next week. I'll keep you posted!

It is finished!

http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/theo_conf/PreConference%20Reading%20List.pdf

Looks like we have some work to do...