Question?

Blogging has been a difficult matter for me. I have been unable to find the time to get a few words down on paper. Nevertheless, I will once again set forth to blog on a more regular basis.

Here is the plan:

I will post over a long period of time many of the ideas that I have been having about Salvation used within the Christian context and how that relates to life now and into the future. Since this is a long term goal, do not expect that it will be finished within a few posts. Don't necessarily expect each following post to deal directly with the issue of salvation but rather each post will in theory attempt to deal with some facet of the Christian view of Salvation.

Before beginning, I need to first attempt to explain what I expect to find through my searching. With my good friend Tim I want to first affirm that salvation is "always more and never less." Salvation thus is not solely about a renewed life after death, but Salvation also speaks to the physical, spiritual and social salvation that Christ works out through his Church. Further, if the research warrants, I submit that the salvation after death was, for Jesus, a mere bump on the full salvic landscape, at least by the amount of time that he spent on that facet of salvation.

I would rather you know my preconceived notions than make you try to guess them through future posts. Feel free to comment at any time throughout, since I would rather that this were a dialog than a monologue.

On the famous Iraqi blog "Baghdad is Burning" she shares her final trip of leaving Iraq. The most poignant line was:
The first minutes after passing the border were overwhelming.
Overwhelming relief and overwhelming sadness…
How is it that only a stretch of several kilometers
and maybe twenty minutes, so firmly segregates life from death?

It has been quite a while since I last put metaphorical pen to paper. Yet, a movie I saw yesterday sparked my critical side. It is a movie that many have already seen, and has been reviewed by many more eloquent and qualified than I (Tim) yet, I feel compelled to add to the dialog.
The famous battle of Thermopylae was re-told with quite a few addendums in the greatly popular “300.” There were several good themes in the movie, but they were grossly overshadowed by the rest of the elements in this film. After mulling over the film for about a day, there are three main issues that came to mind concerning “300.”

First off, it is a brutally violent film. Though it isn’t surprising that a movie depicting an epic battle would be violent, I could have done with a little less blood splattering the camera. Erupting from within this violence was an even more disturbing glorification of war and violence. It is a noble thing to give up your life to protect another, as the 300 did, but there was this implicit underlying narrative that screamed violence is the answer to all their and our problems. The idealized war fighting to protect your family is hardly the truth if one were to look at the real battle of Thermopylae. This idealized view of the justness of their cause is under-girded by my second huge problem with the film; it is completely a-historical.

Many have countered that in modern retellings of ancient stories the historicity of the events are hardly the point of the film. While on one level I agree completely, I strongly question the probable political reasons for this particular hollywoodization, (or Millerization as the case may be). In this case, the battle and surrounding events are portrayed in such a way to glorify war, make the west look culturally better than the east and finally instilling the hero’s with a distrust of political solutions in favor of military solutions. The chief scoundrel and traitor from within Sparta was the diplomat.
It was also interesting to me that the truth about the Spartan military was totally turned on its head. The whole Spartan military force was conditioned to be homosexual because it made them better fighters. They could hardly have been fighting to protect their wives and children. Of course, with out this convenient change, the movie probably wouldn’t have appealed to the overly testosteroned populace it was aimed at. Another huge part they left out in all the talk about fighting for freedom was that the free were only 1/10th of the population of Sparta. Because all the labor was done by such a high population of slaves, they had to have a strong standing army just to keep their slave population in check. But the question of whose freedom they were fighting for would have forced Miller to depart from his monolithic portrayal of good verses evil. I could continue by looking at the false dichotomy of Persian mysticism verses Greek reason etc, but that would make this too long to be digestible.

There is also the whole racial issue, with the darker skinned Persians portrayed as monsters. I realize that the Persians were ethnically different, yet to portray them as monsters is an unfair demonization of the Persians. The Persian king Xerxes himself was portrayed as a false deity who would fulfill all your wishes like a genie if you would but bow down to worship him. It was an obvious attempt to conjure up images of a beautiful diabolical tempter reminiscent of the biblical Satan. In contrast, Mr. Miller, and American moviegoers ought to be careful about demonizing any people no matter how ancient or modern.

The only really positive part about the movie was the way in which things were lit. Yet even the visuals were distracted with sub-par cinematography, dialog and speeches. The “great” speeches given were reminiscent of the president’s laughable speech in Will Smith’s big movie “Independence Day.” It really was a mediocre movie in every way that I am surprised anyone liked. Once you factor in the culture of war it is suggesting and all the other negative elements, it becomes not just a wasted two hours, but a wholly negative film. .

I want to set myself strongly within the tradition of Christianity that sees the Bible not as some Divinely dropped document, but rather as the greatest literary work the world has ever seen. The Scriptures were written by people; by humans with emotions, goals, dreams, thoughts, histories and disappointments. When we emphasize the Divine inspiration of the scriptures so much that we forget that each part was written by a person, we lose the beauty of our spiritual history.

Within context, each part of the Scriptures is one part in a continuing journey of discovery, judgement from, and interaction with the true Creator God. When we take passages that we like and divorce them from the context both of the time and the author, we do violence to the text.

I have read a plethora of good articles by people online and in written format about what is wrong with the church at present. There are articles that call for all kinds of reforms and many of them I think would be great. There are articles calling for a change in the way that Churches interact with politics, there are articles calling for churches to act less like businesses and more like the church, there are articles calling for unity, for honesty, for education, and generally for reform. Many of these articles and ideas flow out of these people's interactions with the Scriptures. Yet, there are very few who actually are pointing out that many of the problems with the church in the U.S. is a misunderstanding of scripture.

Good exegesis is not just an academic exercise; it is not just a personal spiritual exercise. Rather it is the tool that can lay bare the misunderstandings and misuse of scripture within this world. Never before have so many people had access to the Scriptures. But, where before has personal experience so shaded our eyes against what the authors of Scripture are actually saying?

My conviction is: there is no better use of a quality education than making good exegesis understandable and visible to all.

A number of the women among Jesus’ followers seem to have had some measure of social and financial independence. They are depicted as traveling with his disciples and contributing to his ministry expenses (Lk 8:1-3). Despite their lack of presence among the apostles, women played crucial roles in Jesus’ life and ministry from the beginning. Jesus’ mother Mary is depicted as the first human to hear of Jesus’ coming and is commended by God for her faith (Lk 1:28,30,42,48). Jesus regularly taught women (Jn 4:10-26; 11:20-27) and received their acts of kindness and financial support (Lk 8:3; 10:38-42; 23:56). Joanna, the wife of Chuza, the tetrarch of Herod Antipas’s steward (Lk 8:3), may have been the follower of Jesus named Joanna (Lk 24:10).
Jesus apparently taught that both men and women can remain unmarried out of dedication to God (Mt 19:3-12). This teaching ran counter to most Jewish and pagan traditions, in which marriage and procreation were obligations and (for women) the principal means of achieving fulfillment. Many of his contemporaries would have considered some of Jesus’ views on women radical, but he stopped short of calling for dramatic changes in existing gender relationships. According to Acts, the women disciples joined with the men in prayer and fellowship following Jesus’ resurrection (Act 1:14). They evidently helped to elect Matthias (Acts 1:15-26). They reportedly received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and spiritual power along with male believers at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-11, 17-18). Women were often among the first believers (Acts 5:14; 12:12; 16:14-15; 17:3, 34).

Paul’s teachings and descriptions of Christian woman indicate a new realm of ministry activity that was denied to the typical Jewish woman, and they present a softened version of the larger society’s patriarchal family structure. Many of the women mentioned in the Pauline books of the New Testament seem to have enjoyed some level of economic and social independence. The Pauline circle included women who headed households, ran businesses, had independent wealth and traveled with their own slaves and helpers. Paul led to Christ several “Greek women of high standing” in Macedonia (Acts 15:14; 17:4,12). Some who were married converted to this new religious sect without the consent of their husbands (1 Cor 7:13). Paul allowed them to initiate divorce, though he advised against it. In addition, women took on some of the same roles as men within the congregation. Some exercised functions like public praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:4-5). Christian women at Corinth in particular apparently experienced remarkable freedom (1 Cor 1:11; 11:5; 16:19; Acts 18:2,18).

A number of women served in positions of leadership in the Pauline congregations. Women like Lydia (Acts 16:14,40), Priscilla (acts 18:2-3; Rom 16:3-4; 1 Cor 16:19), Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2), the mother of Rufus (Rom 16:13) and Chloe (1 Cor 1:11) were fellow workers with Paul. They are described as evangelists and teachers, and women whose homes hosted churches. We do not know the level of leadership exerted by women in the Christian congregations. The absence of fixed, formal offices at the time makes it hard to determine the scope of their functions.

The difficulties in interpreting some of Paul’s comments about women adds to this uncertainty as well. Paul considered women the spiritual equals of men in Christ (Gal 3:28) and told both Christian men and women to submit to one another (Eph 5:21). His writings permit Christian women to pray and prophesy in the church meetings (1 Cor 11:2-16; Acts 21:9). ON the other hand, Paul warns women not to usurp leadership in public worship (1 Tim 2:12). Paul appears to order women to “keep silence in the churches” (1 Cor 7:34-36), but in light of his acceptance in 1 Corinthians 11 of women who pray and prophesy in public worship, this probably refers to the inappropriate interruption of speakers. The Greek author Plutarch, writing about fifty years later, warns the unlearned not to interrupt lectures (On Lectures 3). In some contexts, including the Jewish religious context, it was considered inappropriate for women to interrupt a speaker with questions.

Quoted from:
Jeffers, James. The Greco Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1999) pp. 251-252

At least in part, the implicit narrative of the book of Jonah is a critique of the prophet Jonah and by extension a critique of Israel's lack of compassion for their neighbors. Then the new story with Jesus as the protagonist makes perfect sense. He, in fact, is the hero who didn't run away from his vocation as prophet, but rather took the message boldly to Israel. Through his obedience he was demonstrating Israel's disobedience in shirking their vocation as light to the world.

Jonah as the prophet who doesn't want anyone outside of Israel to feel salvation is an interesting parody of the God who says "I don't desire that any should perish." This story about God's love for all I believe to be one of the more important proclamations of Jesus. Never was Jesus’ inclusiveness as overt as Paul would make it in the next generation, but the clear message through his parables and actions was that his message was for the whole world.

The story of the woman at the well comes to mind when one thinks of Jesus interacting with non-Jews. Though the Samaritan’s believed that they were also the followers of YHWH, there was an unimaginably large gap between them and the Jews. Yet, Jesus, a prophet to the Jews, takes the time to talk with a disreputable woman from a different tradition and through her bring salvation to her non-Jewish community.

Jesus did many things that most churches wouldn’t dream of doing. In this particular case he taught a pagan woman with questionable morals who then became his voice box to the hated Samaritans.

And many churches won’t even let a woman teach?