Paul's Purpose for Romans

One of the most celebrated Biblical books is with out doubt, Paul's letter to the Romans. Typically Romans is thought to be Paul's theological manifesto, a sort of a systematic sketch of the Christian faith. To be sure, Romans is rich with theological insight, depth and doctine; would we expect anything different from one of history's most profound thinkers? I once knew of a man that read Romans once a day for a number of his adult years. No doubt he gained insight into the depths of the time honored doctrines of faith, justification, sin and redemption. Perhaps, however, what he gained in insight, he may have lost or lacked in practice.

Paul's purpose for Romans is not primarily doctrinal - to pass along a system of believe - but "pastoral". In other words, his desire is to shape the community to whom he addresses his letter - faithful Jews and Gentiles - and influence their practice. In Romans, doctrine is front and center, but it never supplants faithful practice; neither does it assume it. In Romans, and I would argue the rest of the Bible, the point of doctrine is to inform and shape the community.

"Community" leads me to a final point. Spiritual communal formation is much more than a few application points after a theological dissertation (read: sermon). "Application" as it is typically termed in the church, focuses too much on the individual and not enough on the community - to whom Paul was speaking (separation of years, context and original audience not withstanding). The problems with this approach are legion, not the least of which is creating the notion that the Bible is about us (the actors) and not primarily about God (the author and main character).

In the end, Paul's words stand - "I am writing to you, all those loved by God in Rome" and "I want you all to know how often I've intended to come to you, so that I might have some fruit among you...I am a debtor to all...thus I am eager to preach the Gospel to you who are in Rome."

 

Gospel Sketch: Galatians

Often overlooked and overshadowed - for sure - by it's longer counterpart, Romans, Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia certainly holds it's own when it comes to understanding Paul (especially so), and more importantly the Gospel he preached.

Following is a short sketch of the Gospel from Galatians, chapter by chapter:

Chapter 1

• The Gospel is announcement, needs to be preached and needs someone to 'announce" it.
• Preach = to announce good news; apostle = ambassador, delegate or representative

Chapter 2

• The Gospel is for all people.
• An outworking of the Gospel is "table fellowship" between those that are justified.
• Justified = declared to be in the right with God

Chapter 3

• The Gospel works by faith through promise; it doesn't not work through law and curse.
• The Law, Torah, is not, however, opposed to the Promise (Gospel).

Chapter 4

• The Gospel produces heirs that have the full benefits of "sons", not household "slaves".
• The Gospel, as well as being based on Promise, is guaranteed through Covenant.

Chapter 5

• Love is the language of the Gospel and love fulfills the intent of the Law.
• The Spirit leads God's people into the Gospel life.

Chapter 6

• Jesus is the pattern of Gospel (and Law, i.e. God's word) love, in both his life and sacrificial death.
• Gospel love is others centered.

The Jazz Session #344: Tim Berne

via thejazzsession.com

Interview with Alto master Tim Berne. Informative insight into his music and approach. Thanks Jason Crane!

Jesus, Exile and the Old Testament

Jesus from the Deesis Mosaic (Photo credit: jakebouma)

Read through a paper last night by Doug McComiskey, "Exile and the Purpose of Jesus' Parables" - 29 pages of goodness! His basic thesis was that Jesus thought the Jews of his day were still in exile and his parabolic teaching was used in part to underscore that fact to his audience. McComiskey draws on the work of NT Wright, understandably so, but does his own heavy lifting in connecting Jesus' words/parables to the original Old Testament texts. In doing so, he makes two significant points: 1) The original context/meaning of the OT was broad enough to include the generation of Jesus (and beyond). Therefore Jesus did not have to pour some "new meaning" into the older text. 2) Jesus saw himself connected tightly to the OT story and didn't simply use the OT to "proof text" his point.

These two points run contrary to much of the scholarly discussion today which leans more heavily on finding a deeper meaning in the OT text, on the one hand, and reducing Jesus' appropriation of the OT to simply prooving theological points on the other (proof texting - having a point and attempting to find a verse for support, usually without respecting the context). For McComiskey meaning and context work together to form a narrative, organic whole with Jesus at the heart of the story.

 

The Beginning of the Gospel (Luke's Version)

Working my way through the Gospel of Luke, I have been struck by many of the comments in Darrell Bock's IVP commentary (part of the IVP New Testament Commentary Series); but what else is new? I've been challenged by his work for numerous years, and was oh so close to having him come out to speak at a church I was co-pastoring afew years back, and the plans just simply fell through. I always find Bock to be about as balanced an exegete as you'll find and what's more, he's a churchman and has managed to keep one foot in the academy and one foot in the church; oh, and one foot in the culture, even though he doesn't have three feet.

In his introduction, Bock talks about Luke's narrative strategy and how he builds his readers' appreciation of Jesus by starting where they're at, with concepts familiar to them, and taking them to deeper levels, revealing a Jesus that confounds and often out rightly defies categorization. At one point, Bock uses the term "seeker-sensitive". An apt term I think and one that has been misused in popular church culture and probably under-used in theological circles. Luke was far from "watering down" Jesus; he was building his case with that which was commonly shared, commonly understood.

Another interesting point for consideration is Bock's analysis of Luke's contribution to Atonement theory/theology. One would expect Luke's primary input to be centered on the classical, penal substitution model; in fact, knowing a bit of Bock's roots, that's exactly what I expected him to state. However, true to form, Bock goes where the text (in this case Luke) goes (it's what I appreciate about him and so many other careful exegetes God has gifted to His church) and makes the case that Luke's primary concern is to underscore Jesus' victory. In Bock's words, "he (Luke) highlights the victorious, exalted Lord who emerged from that death, along with the opportunity for forgiveness he provides" (pg. 23).

 

Apple and "Smart Growth"

In a recent article, ok blog post, in Better Cities and Towns, the author, Kaid Benfield, takes Apple to task for violating the "most basic tenants of smart growth and walkability" because apparently they're too cool and oh-so-hip, http://bit.ly/ynUBpz.>

Look, I'm no Apple fan-boy or apologist, but Benfield's post is so riddled with over-statements, (at best) half-truths and premised upon assumptive rhetoric that I had to come to their defense...I'm sure Apple is just waiting for me weigh-in. Heck, maybe they'll throw in an iPad 3 third gen iPad.

Suburbs get blamed for everything these days, from poor health, to traffic problems, to ruining "community". I'm not buying it; never have and doubt I ever will. I've been around urban centers for most of my life, and guess where I've encountered poor health, poor educational systems, traffic problems and "community-less" communities most frequently. Yep. The City. The City. But, I digress. Well not really, because that's where Benfield begins his diatribe. To rescue us from suburban plight (isn't that what he really wants?), Benfield argues for employing so-called "smart growth" techniques including, presumably, transit, walkways and little, if any, parking. I'm presuming here, but then if he's entitled, I'm entitled.

It continues to amaze me how "smart-growth" advocates have no problem telling people (or businesses) how they should use private land, as if they are in the position to speak for the public! Apple owns the land and is already bound by certain codes and regulations, at least at the local and state level and would need to comply accordingly. Is Benfield justified to tell a land-owner how best to use his hard-earned land? Again, Apple is already regulated on the land, but should they then be told how to use the land? A reasonable person would answer, "No". But, Benfield would certainly object, since he resorts to rhetoric which I think shows his true colors - "this (the design and building) is for the one percent." Oh, boo hoo.

Finally, Steve Jobs included the following in his vision for the new campus:

- Achieve 80% landscaping by undergrounding parking

- Vast increase in number of trees

- Primary energy source as natural gas

- Fitness center for employees as well as large cafeteria

- Decrease in surface parking of some 90%

- Concern to be shown for employee safety

- Buses runing on boifuel to serve the new campus

In my mind these things, while interesting and innovative, do not make or break the issue for me. They are not a "green badge of honor"...for me. Regardless, I support and applaud Apple's right as a property owner to develop their land as they see fit - within the proper guidelines and Codes, of course. And, if someone doesn't like the "private" decision of a "private" company, then they should return their iPhones and iPads as Benfield suggests. Or better, just send 'em my way.

 

 

 

Romans as story

When we read sacred Scripture, we are not only reading someone else's mail, we're ready someone else's story. However, it is a story that the reader - who believes it's message and Central Star - is a part of. (Fortunately, this sort of "participatory union" doesn't occur when the mailman puts my mail in my neighbor's box; a regular occurrence in my neighborhood!)

If we believe what we read, we become a participant, not a bystander, in the greatest story ever told. But, it helps to remember it is a story - with a plot, characters, a beginning, middle and end, etc. But, what about the parts of Scripture that are not in story form, like Romans, for instance?

In his first chapter, Paul the Apostle ties the life of Jesus (a story in itself) to the story of Israel (specifically David), as if he wants to ground all he's about to say in the Biblical narrative. In fact, the Jesus story is a story within a story, but that's another post for another day.

Not only does Paul ground what he's about to say in the Biblical story, it continues to inform the whole letter. So, his letter to the Romans doesn't narrate a story, the story narrates his letter. You can see this in full play with his allusions to David, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Israel throughout the letter. The more we become familiar with the story(ies), the better we can plumb the depths of a letter, like Romans.More to come...