Andrew Perriman on Easter

I also appreciate the historical and narrative sensitivity of Andrew Perriman's account of the significance of Jesus' resurrection. I quote:

"In his death at the hands of Rome, betrayed by a nation on the brink of apostasy, Jesus suffered for the sins of his people, anticipating the faithfulness of those who would take up their own cross out of loyalty to him during this protracted eschatological crisis. In his resurrection from the dead through the power of the Spirit, he anticipated the restoration of the people of God and the eventual vindication of the community that would take the risk of following him down a narrow and dangerous path leading to life.

The story would soon clash with the dominant religious conceit of the pagan world. Unlike the lawless, blasphemous, self-aggrandizing type of Caesar, Jesus did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. He embarked on an entirely different trajectory, downwards towards servanthood, humiliation, suffering and death. But God raised him from the defeat of death - he did not abandon his soul to Hades (Acts 2:27) - and gave him a name far above all the governors and kings and emperors of the earth; and because of his faithfulness and obedience, all the ends of the earth would come to see that YHWH alone is God, that he is sovereign over the nations and cultures of the world."

The whole post (as well as the subsequent conversation) is well worth reading (see here).

Peace.

Easter words from Michael Westmoreland-White

And I quote:

"But Resurrection Sunday isn’t about any of that. I BARELY tolerate “Santa.” I have no tolerance for Easter Bunnie intrusions into the celebration, not of rebirth after winter, but of LIFE AFTER DEATH. Jesus was DEAD (not swooned on the cross) and God RAISED HIM UP.

I believe in the BODILY resurrection of Jesus–more than just a physical resuscitation, but not LESS THAN that–nothing ridiculous like a “spiritual resurrection.” [On advice from a friendly critic, I am removing the judgmental language. But Christianity grew out of Judaism and in that context "spiritual resurrection" was a contradiction in terms. No First Century Jew would have used the term "resurrection" for anything non-somatic. "Spiritual resurrection" is a belief that grows out of Western post-Enlightenment skepticism, building on the Greek body-soul dualism imported into early Christianity from Hellenistic philosophy.] I don’t believe that souls exist apart from bodies (Greek rather than biblical anthropology), nor anything stupid Gnostic like “the immortality of the soul.” ONLY GOD is immortal. The Christian hope is for resurrection. And our hope, as Paul says in I Co. 15, is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus.

Resurrection Sunday means that we worship a Risen, Living Savior. It means that empires of death do not have the last word. It means that God VINDICATES Jesus’ nonviolent way. Rome, the temple elites of 1st C. Judaism, and all the Powers of Death only THOUGHT they were victorious in crucifying Jesus. They failed. The cross reveals the violence of the system, of all of us, but strips it naked of any victory because of the empty tomb and the proclamation, “He is not here; He is risen!”

This is the power behind all Christian movements for justice or liberation. As Gustavo Gutierrez replied to a liberal theologian from the U.S. trying to water down his robust theology, “In Latin America, we need a God who can raise Jesus from the dead.”"

All I can say is, amen!
(Read the whole thing: here)

Misinterpreting Matthew 25

Matthew 25:31-46 is often quoted to motivate Christian involvement in 'social issues' (such as poverty, homelessness, and so forth).

I believe Christians should work for the common good in the cities we find ourselves in, to be clear (following the example provided in Jeremiah 29:7). But Matthew 25 is about a judgment of the nations in light of their treatment of Jesus' disciples (the 'least of these... my brothers [and presumably sisters]' is what Jesus says). The parables of judgment are primarily about judgment on unrepentant Israel, ultimately centered around the destruction of the Temple (cf. e.g. Mark 13). The trampling of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple of course goes hand in hand with 'fleeing to the hills'--with the scattering of the disciples (who will nevertheless be 'gathered' in God's providential care). The judgment of the nations (NOT the 'final judgment'--notice there's no mention made of resurrection in this passage) in Matthew 25 is thus Jesus' way of comforting his disciples--suggesting that they will still be in God's providential care.

Christians miss this, in my opinion, because they are taught to think 'final judgment' every time they read 'judgment'. But of course the biblical text is far richer (and far vaguer) than that. Many judgments are conceived of historically (read Isaiah, Jeremiah, or even Jesus on the Temple) and are rendered symbolically in prophecy.

Just had to get that out there, after reading the 1,001st misuse of this passage online.
[Further reading: Andrew Perriman's The Coming of the Son of Man]

Peace.

Greed, made in the U.S.A.

As New York Times reports, a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death this morning, as an 'overeager' crowd broke through the doors looking for 'deals'.

"Black Friday" is so-called, as I understand it, because for many retailers, it makes the difference in the financial year between being 'in the red' and being 'in the black'. But every year, people get hurt because everything about the day fuels greed, impatience, and selfishness. Instead of letting the people who genuinely can't afford the necessities of everyday life do their shopping in peace, people who already have too much throttle each other for the chance to pinch a few pennies.

It's greed, it's sin, it's an abomination.

A depressing day to be a citizen of this 'great' country.

God have mercy on us.

Time to say goodbye.

I thought starting a blog would be a good idea. Turns out the only way to get blog traffic is to be active on lots of others blogs (unless you're a famous theologian, then people just come to you, of course, but that's not my situation). And I have better things to do with my time (grad school comes to mind, as does my marriage, my devotional life, etc...).

So I think I'll call it quits. At least for the time being. I may still post from time to time, but no promises. There's a life to be lived and I spend too much time online as it is.

I'm always available via e-mail: daniel.farmer *at* mu &dot& edu ...

To the occasional reader: peace be with you.

-Daniel-

A very short Christian history of the universe.

God. Love. Creator.

A world, evolving.

With sentience comes pain, with reason, sin.

A people, called to point back to the beginning, to God, to goodness.

A human, God, killed by the People.
New Creation: Resurrection: a new Israel.

Marks of the Spirit People: conversion, baptism, communion.
Marks of the Spirit People: peace, simplicity, generosity, holiness, love (rebirth).

Scattered everywhere--salt for the earth.

[...]

Consummation(?)(!)

Swearing, media, and the common good

The LA Times reports that the U.S. Supreme Court's is hearing a case on 'broadcast indecency'. Predictably, the case centers around which words can and can't be used at which times on broacast television.

The fixation on words is, of course, deeply problematic, since it bypasses content altogether. The effect is that, under the current FCC regulations which prohibit certain words from being spoken, you get to hear sh*t on TV and the radio with a cherry on top. I mean the metaphorical fecal matter, not the word. A song or show may be free of the taboo words, but nevertheless glorify cheap sex, drugs, alcohol and violence, and still get on the air. By contrast, a fantastically critical song such as Nickelback's "I wanna be a rockstar" gets words like 'drug-dealer' edited out (so it comes at as '------dealer' - and so it's totally obvious what was 'edited' out), even though the whole point of the song is to make fun of wannabes and the 'rockstar' lifestyle.

This fixation on words regardless of context (there is some consideration of context--but that's more the exception than the rule) betrays not a shared societal good which is being supported by broadcast TV or radio, but rather a simple fear of being sued (typical of liberal democractic societies whose only moral language is that of 'rights'). It's reminiscent of the spirit of the question Christian teenagers ask of their spiritual mentors: "how far is too far [sexually]?" By the time the question has been asked, the point has already been missed. It is the wrong question.

Likewise, the question 'what words can't we air?' is already a sign that social uplift is off the agenda and profit is the driving force behind broadcast content. Welcome to the U.S.A.!