Welcome to Groans From Within!
Some Favorite Discussions...
- If you could press "delete" on a Bible passage, which one would you erase? (updated!)
- Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, chapter reviews
- Entering the "Missional/ Pomo/ Emerging/ Younger Evangelical/ Red Letter Christians /New Monastic" Conversation
- Is the Earth Valuable or a Resource? Quote to Ponder: Christopher J.H. Wright
- Quote to Ponder: Theology affects Ecology?
- Exodus/ Passover Motifs in the New Testament... "The Cups"
- My Evolution Towards Theistic Evolution
- How the Heavens Go?
- Pharaoh and Passover Message
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Why things have become slow lately
Friday, September 4, 2009
Fundamentalism... Some Rants on Its Historical Development (repost)
In order to reclaim maleness, fundamentalism arose as a call that included a return to 'family values' and called women to embrace the godly calling of submissiveness. It also called the women to quit experimenting with sexual experiences outside of marriage, dancing, smoking... well, basically "flapperism." I would agree with many of the moral values that these and the new fundamentalist would put forth, but I think the way they went about it all has damaged Christian faith in the present.
In order to defend the 'moral code' that they were comfortable with, men in this movement began to do several things. They defeminized the church with militant themes (hmm, ever wonder where some of the modern impulse in right wing faith towards war came from?). They kicked women out of the pulpits (who many had taken leadership because of a lack of godly men who were too tied up with questionable public lives). They attacked the so-called modernists who began to rethink and challenge their assumptions about the Bible. They attacked any person or belief system that could be labeled as a threat to the defence of the 'moral code' that they claimed to be biblical. All of this, they did on the grounds that the Bible should be read in a "plain sense", taking the meaning that makes the most sense as we read it through our lens of culture (this apposed to a pre-modern understanding of Scripture as embedded in a very different cultural context that must not be ignored by proper biblical scholarship). This is why most of the early fundamentalists embraced dispensational theology, because it was based on setting up systems in the Bible so that it all made logical sense (this is where the "Left Behind" gets its view of end times from).
Well, what is my main point? I think that in an ignorant attempt to defend this new view of how to read the bible, driven by the need to preserve the ethics of the 'moral code' (a return to separate spheres mentality in order to allow men to feel manly again); that many unnecessary polarities have been constructed in Christian faith. For instance, why is evolution viewed as evil? Because it threatens the 'moral code' or the plain reading of the bible. Anyone who considers the first 11 chapters of Genesis are pre-history and that the first 3 chapters are written from an ancient worldview to express God's truth of creation and evil rather than as modern science, is automatically an evil liberal! So, instead of entering into intelligent dialogue about matters of faith and science, Christians are viewed as naive and irrelevant. So, what do these fundamentalists do? They claim that science is completely driven by atheism and if you believe in any form of evolution you must be a practical atheist... how ridiculous this has become! Science wars are divisive, and when a student is told their entire life that their faith rises and falls on whether God made the earth in 6 days or not, and then come to realize that the majority of scientist believe the earth to be billions of years old... many of these students lose their faith. This is one example of unnecessary polarities.
Finally, I want to call the average Christian to ask questions about their assumptions that were inherited by a late 19th Century reaction to a loss of male identity. Why do I believe this about life... or God... or the mission of the Gospel... or politics? Did I come to that conclusion because of inherited fundamentalism or because that is authentically what the Bible and the way of Jesus communicates? It is in finding new answers to some of these questions that the Church will find new ways of being the people of God in America.
Let me emphasize that these are some thoughts about the origins of the movement, but that other significant factors also existed that contributed to the formation of fundamentalism.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Youth miniStarZ: A video for anyone in Youth Ministry or who just likes to laugh!
This is a video a friend sent me about being in youth ministry! Tell me your thoughts!
(written by Benjamin Wallis for Student Life Camp 2009) Being a youth minister is hard work. Hard work that often, goes unthanked. so. THANK YOU ...)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Don't Forget to Take a Sword With You!
For the few months leading up to a class I took on the book of Luke, I listened the audio of Luke multiple times on my ipod as I drove to various places. It is interesting to me how much fresh insight you can gain when you hear the Scriptures as opposed to reading them. When I listen, I try to imagine that I am in one of the churches that Paul had planted or supported through his Apostolic ministry, and that I am hearing the text for the first time in one of our small house-church gatherings. I know that this is done with much naivety, for I know next to nothing about what it would be like to be a first century male living under the rule of the emperors. Nevertheless, I do all I can to hear the text with fresh ears.
As I did this with Luke’s gospel, I was struck by the odd dichotomy of verses about peace with verses about swords and violence. Why would Jesus say so much about peace and instruct his disciples to carry swords? Is Jesus a walking contradiction or is there more to the story? This semester, I learned that there is indeed more to the story.
The insight has to do with Luke 22.35-38:
35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." 38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
On the surface, the above passage seems to be a contradiction to most of what Jesus has taught thus far in the gospel. However, this is when we need to take into account the language that is used here. Jesus tells his disciples after having enjoyed the Passover/ Last Supper together, that they will be facing a dark road ahead. In the past, Jesus had instructed them to not worry about taking anything with them such as: a purse, bag, or sandals because God would supply all that they need; however, this time around things will be different. Surely God will still be with them, but they need to be prepared for impending difficulty for the kingdom. Jesus will be handed over to be crucified, and animosity will surely come to the disciples now and in the near future (so much that Peter will deny Jesus on three separate occasions). In prior missionary endeavors, the disciples could expect hospitality, but now they will be met with animosity. Jesus tells them that they need to take a purse and bag with one addition; they will need to get a sword. Jesus will be handed over as the Scriptures foretold, and great frustration is awaiting them in the hours and days to come (even in Acts). The sword serves as a metaphor for the coming strife that they will face. But instead of understanding the metaphor, the disciples are so dense to what is about to happen that they take the idea literally! They actually grab two swords! But they Jesus answers them back again with, “That is enough” or as Joel B Green puts it, “Enough of this!” The way of the kingdom is difficult, and violence will not be returned with violence from Jesus followers. They must be ready to endure the coming persecution.
There are a few good arguments to defend this position. The first is that Jesus in all the gospels is known for his metaphorical and parabolic language. He seems to constantly use metaphors in his teaching, most of which would have made sense to the listener in the first century, but may have lost their impact in some ways to the modern reader. Second, it seems that violence goes against the theme of Jesus’ life and ministry. He never uses any form of violence towards another human being. He actually refuses to be violent in any way when violence is done to him. Third, when one of his disciples uses a sword and cuts off the ear of the priest’s servant, Jesus responds by healing the wound rather than condoning such behavior (Luke 22.49-51). Fourth, Luke has already used the sword as a metaphor for animosity (see 12.51-53). Finally, most scholars, nonviolent or not, interpret the passage as I have expounded above, not as an opportunity for the disciples to be prepared to use self-defense.
How have you read this passages (and others like it) in the past?
What other interpretations have you heard of this passage?
How do we discern metaphor from the literal?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Closer (Series), Forgiveness and Reconciliation, Philemon Message
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Quote To Ponder: Billy Graham on Evolution
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Atonement? Do Jesus' Words Get Priority and Do They Demonstrate the Rest of the NT as Heresy?
For the last couple of days, a kind man named Robert Roberg has been commenting on a post on the Atonement from just after Easter. If I am understanding him correctly, he believes that only the actual words of Jesus are authoritative and that the other parts of Scripture are simply commentary. Anything that seems to contradict a statement of Jesus is not true. Therefore, several statements in Paul are false, especially if they say anything having to do with “blood” or sacrifice being required to remove sin. From this perspective Jesus speaks the words of forgiveness, and that is how one finds eternal life. Here are some quotes:
“If he never died or rose he would have still completed his mission. You are cleansed (would that be forgiven?) by the word. He sent his word and healed them. The resurrection was to increase our faith and take away our fear of death as you said it vindicated everything Jesus said and did.”
Here is another quote regarding the NT:
"Although he was wounded and lost his throne of power, Satan was not giving up, he made sure the twisted blood atonement found it's way into the other NT books. He has succeeded in clouding and diluting the words of Jesus through mixing."
I want to invite you to read the conversation below and give some input. How would you respond to this ‘different’ kind of approach to Jesus and the Scriptures as a whole? Do Jesus’ words demonstrate that the rest of the New Testament has several contradictions? What would you say to him about issues of atonement? Are Jesus' words what had the power to forgive, or his defeat of the powers?
(Although you may have different views, I would ask you to treat Robert with respect in your comments)
______________________
Jesus told us how to restore the broken connection with the father without blood or death. He said If you love me the father will love you. (Restoration accomplished). Do you need a better connection? If you keep my sayings (commandments) the father and I will make our abode with you. No blood or death involved.
The Old boys (sages of the OT) thought blood was necessary for sin removal. Wrong! If you forgive others the father will forgive you. No blood required.
Stop readin all dem damn books and read Jesus.
Peace
Robert Roberg
Gainesville FL
___________________
(KURT)
Question for Robert: Then why did Jesus have to die and resurrect? The bible seems to think it was for the "remission of sins."
PS - I love to read Jesus... I also love to know and experience Jesus in my daily walk with his spirit!
_______________________
Sorry Kurt,
I didn't mean to imply you don't read Jesus, I can see you do, but like most believers you mix his truth in with the whole Bible as if all truth is equal. Plus you were recommending a list of books.
I think we get lost in the forest of the Bible and mislead by mixing. Only the word's of Jesus are the Light, and the bread, spirit and zoe life.
Even my words are lifeless compared to his.
The blood of Jesus is found in Proverbs 8, it is "wisdom".
It is wisdom that teaches how to remit our sins.
Jesus spoke the words of wisdom which shows us in 5 steps how to remove sins.
1.Confess your sins,
2. make amends
3. Forgive and you will be forgiven.
4. Because she loved much, her sins though many are forgiven.
5. Make a supreme effort, like the man coming down through the roof, to reach Jesus.
None of these steps involves blood, or death.
Jesus goal was not to die but to live a sinless life. It was his sinless life that broke the power of Satan. He offered his life as a ransom in a living prisoner exchange. One sinless man sinned and one sinless man conquered sin. God doesn't cheat. He didn't come to the earth in a skin suit and deceive the devil.
Satan was a murderer from the beginning and so Jesus knew he would die, his final temptation was to get through the final hours without sinning and he made it. He shouted in a loud voice tetlestai (the gladiator's cry of victory).
Although he was wounded and lost his throne of power, Satan was not giving up, he made sure the twisted blood atonement found it's way into the other NT books. He has succeeded in clouding and diluting the words of Jesus through mixing.
The point of the resurrection was so that we might believe, and prove to us that we too will rise on the final day if we follow our master and keep on studying his undiluted Gospel and keep on doing it.
Peace
Robert
__________________________
(KURT)
Robert: Thanks for coming back and giving me more to ponder. A couple of questions:
1. Do you believe that only the recorded words of Jesus are authoritative? If so why?
2. Do you not believe that the rest of the NT books are accurate in their depiction of Jesus' death and resurrection in regard to the issue of forgiveness? If this is your view or some version of it; on what grounds do you dismiss the writings of Paul, Peter, John, and others? Is this what you mean by "Mixing?"
3. Would you categorize your belief system with a specific name?
Finally, I agree that Jesus declared forgiveness without shedding his blood in some scenarios that you mention, but it seems that without the resurrection his words would not have been valid. Resurrection vindicated Jesus as the world's True Lord and the only one who has ever conquered death. Any thoughts here? Just trying to understand you position a bit more.
PS - Do you have a blog? Any recommended online reading I can do to further understand your views on Jesus?
____________
Hi Kurt,
. A couple of questions:
1. Do you believe that only the recorded words of Jesus are authoritative? If so why?
Jesus said heaven and earth would pass but his words would not. So yes they are authoritative.
Everything that harmonizes with the words of Jesus is true. He said his words are spirit and zoe life. He said " am the truth. He is our gold standard by which we judge all truth. His words for me are only in the 4 Gospels and that's why I call myself a Red Letter Christian (Not to be confused with Tony Camplos mixing of politics and Jesus).
I also call myself a "one viner" for I only draw my theology from the one vine of Jesus. The other writings I view as commentary, some of the commentary is in sync with Jesus but some of it is contrary. For example when Jesus says God does not want sacrifice and Paul , Hebrews and 2 Peter preach sacrifices I disregard their commentary and dismiss their comments as the thoughts of imperfect men being lead astray by adversaries.
2. Do you not believe that the rest of the NT books are accurate in their depiction of Jesus' death and resurrection in regard to the issue of forgiveness? If this is your view or some version of it; on what grounds do you dismiss the writings of Paul, Peter, John, and others? Is this what you mean by "Mixing?"
I dismiss anything that does not harmonize with Jesus whether it is said by Moses, Pau, Mt, Mrk, Lk, or Jn,l or any apostle (they were all fallible men)
No amount of blood can remove the sins of an unrepentant sinner who does not forgive everyone.
"If you do not forgive others, father cannot forgive you."
3. Would you categorize your belief system with a specific name?
"Berean" for I search the scriptures daily. I am not a teacher, preacher, prophet, expert scholar, but merely a serious student who has been wrong often and I do not inisist people agree with me. If you can show me scripture that harmonizes with Jesus, I am teachable.
Finally, I agree that Jesus declared forgiveness without shedding his blood in some scenarios that you mention, but it seems that without the resurrection his words would not have been valid. Resurrection vindicated Jesus as the world's True Lord and the only one who has ever conquered death. Any thoughts here? Just trying to understand you position a bit more.
His mission was to deliver the logos. He was the sower sowing the logos (note he does not claim to be the logos, but preached the logos and told us to preach it.
The logos is the message of the Father as revealed by Jesus . The law came by Moses but truth came by Jesus. If he never died or rose he would have still completed his mission. You are cleansed (would that be forgiven?) by the word. He sent his word and healed them. The resurrection was to increase our faith and take away our fear of death as you said it vindicated everything Jesus said and did.
PS - Do you have a blog? Any recommended online reading I can do to further understand your views on Jesus?
I have a book on AmazonThe Gospel of the kingdom: Retold and it can be downloaded here free. http://robertroberg.com/writings/kingdom35.pdf
Peace
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Recommended Resources: "Spiritual Warfare" Series by Greg Boyd
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
What are some good books on "Community?"
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Biblical Authority, Postmodernism, and Patristic Hermeneutics...
Monday, July 6, 2009
Pray For Kate McRae!!!!!!!
Click the title above to stay up to date...
Follow on Twitter
Hear a song inspired by Kate
Thursday, July 2, 2009
An "unpopular" 4th of July Post... Why this is Not a Day to Celebrate...
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Help Me With PHILEMON Please! 1st Ever Video Blog
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Do You Have the Mark of the Beast? 666: Greg Boyd
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Can You Preach a Passage Using Only a Footnote? Romans 8:28
In seminary you come across great teachers and books that you probably wouldn’t encounter otherwise. I have been blessed to sit under Dr. Tim Geddert in multiple settings over the last couple of years. One of his books, Double Take: New Meanings From Old Stories, is a book that I HIGHLY recommend if you are a teacher or preacher or simply enjoy fresh insights!!!!
In one of the chapters, he draws out a ‘new meaning’ of a text that has huge implications for how we read Romans 8. Unfortunately, it is one of those passages that are often considered “life verses” or sacredly embedded with a particular meaning. This is Romans 8.28 which reads in the NIV:
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
This is a verse that is deeply impactful and can help us when we are in a dark or unknown place in our lives. God truly does work for good… but, what if this passage was trying to communicate something more? Tim Geddert thinks it does, and I happen to agree with him. He points out that the word “sunergei” means basically work together. But it is a bit more complicated than that:
“Sunergei in Greek is not about one party working various ingredients together; it is about more than one party ‘working together’ on a common project. It means, quite literally, ‘work together.’ If Romans 8:28 says that God ‘works together’, then the appropriate question is not, ‘What does God work together?’ The appropriate question is, ‘With whom does God work together?’…The traditional reading of Romans 8:28 takes the phrase ‘those who love God’ in the first way (God works ‘for us’ that is, ‘for our advantage.’)…” Tim Geddert, Double Take, 175-176
If we consider the above approach, there is something wrong or missing in our translations of this beloved passage. Tim suggests that the NIV footnote (also TNIV) gets this one correct. It renders this passage to say:
“In all things God works together with those who love him to bring about what is good…” (TNIV 2nd footnote)
What does this mean in the context of the larger section of Romans 8? Well, I think it demonstrates that as we groan with the creation, by the Spirit of God within us; we are called to be God’s co-workers by joining in his mission to bring about good in our world! God’s mission is to point the broken places and people of the creation who are groaning, to the God who is groaning with them; and who promises to one day liberate the whole cosmos in new exodus fashion! This is missional theology at its finest!
Well, in case you are wondering how Tim justifies this translation for the passage, consider the following quote:
“In all four other occurrences of this word in the New Testament, it has the latter meaning (cf. Mark 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 6:1; James 2:22). Of these, the first three speak explicitly of God working with people or people working with each other. In the fourth, ‘faith and works’ are viewed metaphorically as two parties ‘working along with each other.’ The only way that sunergei is used in the New Testament is when there are two or more parties ‘working together.’ Moreover, the noun associated with this verb (sunergos i.e. co-worker, helper, fellow worker) is also always used to represent two or more parties that are working along with each other! (cf. Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; 1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 1:24; 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philemon 24; 2 John 8). Thus the word is not about making things work together; it is about two parties working together.” Tim Geddert, Double Take, 176
A Few Questions:
1. What are the implications for this approach to translating the passage in regards to interpretation?
2. What thoughts do you have in general on the above ideas?
3. Can we preach this translation of the text without causing controversy… can we preach from a footnote?








