Saturday, February 4, 2012

Biblical manhood: my efforts to not be "biblical" (as it were)

We live in a world that is run by men. This isn't altogether a bad thing but it certainly makes the finger pointing that ensues a failure practically a no brainer. In fact, we men often assume that we are THE leaders in the church and in the family (thats what the bible assumably says on the issue right?) and we never pause to rid ourselves of that assumption when reading Paul. Nowhere is this more evident than in the church. With the recent release of a new book on marriage, entitled "Real Marriage", Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll repeats much of the dominant complementarian theology of the day, except he adds his overly masculine, "in your face" bravado to the equation and it seems as if we have a whole new beast. For roughly 3 years I have highly respected and appreciated Driscoll for the work he had done for the Kingdom, I still admire him to a certain degree. However, amongst other things about his theology that I find myself diverging from, I find this new theology of masculinity to be as much of a stumbling block for me as say his devout calvinism, or his idea of church planting, which looks quite a bit like a franchise. There was even an instance recently where, during an interview, Driscoll went after the interviewer after he learned that his wife was pastoring their church. His argument climaxed when he started asking this man about his view of hell and atonement. To Driscoll, conscious eternal punishment and penal substitutionary atonement are manly doctrines and if you don't agree with them its not because of exegetical or hermeneutical differences, its inevitably due to the fact that you have been feminized! Though, I know women whole believe in the same positions as Driscoll- I have to ask myself; have these women been masculinized? Is that at all healthy, or biblical? I don't want to single out Driscoll here, we can see this same vein of thought in his constituents like John Piper, and Matt Chandler.

Recently John Piper released an article, along with a video of a sermon he delivered where he gives this portrait of what he calls "masculine ministry" as envisioned by John Charles Ryle. It sounds chivalrous, but the underlining theme is authority- this is where I ultimately depart from his position most ambitiously. What about Matt Chandler? I have heard him say multiple times, and in the presence of Piper, that he doesn't preach to women, he preaches to men. I feel that this is a bit ill-fated in a church where women outnumber men dramatically. In fact, the church is predominantly feminine. Perhaps this has something to do with this recent surge in "masculine ministry" or "biblical manhood"?

A few initial problems arise for me when I hear men (especially single men) harping about male leadership within marriage. The banner under which this sort of rhetoric seems to avail itself is that of authority. I think when the question, in this context, is about authority, we are inevitably asking the wrong question. I have even heard women who, without a scriptural backbone, have proposed that the greatest duty of a biblical man is that he leads. Pardon me, I don't mean to make this a battle of semantics, however, the words we use have a deep meaning and impact on our thinking. The greatest duty of a biblical man is to be a follower. (Yes! I just went there) A "biblical" man is one that is marked by Christ. We need only read ever so briskly through the gospels to realize that Jesus was submitted to the Father. I fear that we live in a culture that has no concept of Lordship and the implications of proclaiming someone as "lord" ....

My second observation, which flows from the first, is that if one is truly following in submission to God then he is called to be a servant. In the church we may call this servant leadership. I like that! The words of the apostle Paul come to mind:
"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."-Philippians 2:3-8 ESV

My main points of tension are this: It is my understanding that if we are looking for authority in our readings of scripture, and I know that it takes quite a bit of effort to rid ourselves of that entitled disposition as men in this culture, we are inevitably asking the wrong question of the text. Why is our reading of scripture handicapped by our desire for power? Why is it not marked by our ambitions to serve? Like I alluded to before, such readings of scripture are quick to recite Paul in Ephesian 5 and 1 Timothy 3 but the joy in such chivalrous recitations is not that of a willingness to serve, it is one of authority over- not under. Its the whole "it says so in the bible" dilemma. Lastly, if the focus of the argument exist within the context of a marital convent and it intends to hold water one has to explain to me how people, 1 man and 1 woman, come together before God and become "one flesh", and then, from there, they appoint one of the "one flesh" individual is to exercise authority over the other. Obviously, the imagery used here doesn't quite facilitate this reading of scripture. What we read into scripture is what we inevitably read out of scripture. In this case people are reading the 21st century idea of manhood out of an ancient text. A bit odd huh?!

My second point of tension is a bit more focused on where I find myself in the midst of all of this discussion. For a guy like myself who has had to leave behind financial stability in order to follow God's will for my life I find myself at odds with this reading of scripture because it doesn't allow much room, if any, for someone like me to thrive and grow within my body of fellow believers. In fact, it facilitates the possibility for becoming marginalized within the community of people who are marked by having Christ as their head! A guy such as myself who lives off of the kindness of so many, to such a degree that I reject the idea of being "self sufficient", cannot easily find a place of admiration in todays dominant church culture which is jaded by financial successes and charismatic leaders/speakers. Like I said above, I don't believe a biblical man is warranted by his social status, his income, his burliness, the kind of car he drives, the amount of admiration and respect he has, or how confrontational he is. I have no use in measuring manliness, or manhood, by way of arm wrestling and fist fighting. Frankly, that would improve my situation significantly. I believe that a "biblical man" is marked by his willingness to follow God's will, and actively participate in the advancement and establishment of God's kingdom- at the risk of compromising all of the previously mentioned amenities. Tony Campolo was right when he stated that the church tends to marry the dominant culture! Stanley Hauerwas was right as well when he stated that when we do so we are robbing the world of the witness of the church! It is as if we have derived a litmus test from scripture and we now urge males to meet these standards! And what is the reward for this achievement? After having passed your biblical manhood exam you are crowned with the credentials (by your own merit have you) to exercise authority over others. Ill end with this. This is a diagram that Scot McKnight presents in his book "The Blue Parakeet". I find it incredibly helpful and illuminating.

"If we frame our relationship to the bible in terms of authority we will inevitably have authoritarian issues emerging as theology"-Scot McKnight (the blue parakeet)

Are we going to be like the Mark Driscoll's, in this regard, who look at women who are active in leadership and then belittle the men because there is a lack of male leadership? Maybe there is something to be learned here from the failures of male leadership and the lack of female presence in leadership ... 


Thursday, December 22, 2011

How did Salvation take over the Gospel?

Here is something from "The King Jesus Gospel" that I found particularly fascinating. Enjoy!

     What happened? How did we develop a salvation culture out of a gospel culture? How did "evangelicals" become "soterians"? Or, when did the "gospel" become the Plan of Salvation? It began in many ways with Augustine, but its more focused beginning was in the Reformation, though it did not happen during the Reformation. We can pinpoint the documents themselves that both provide evidence for the shift that was underway and that also provide the foundation for creating a salvation culture. Those two documents, one from the Lutheran wing and one from the Calvinist/Reformed wing, are the Augsburg Confession and the Genevan Confession.
      But before we get there, my own confession. Cutting out the inevitable nonsense that accompanies everything humans do, including Calvin's wretched decisions that led to the burning of Servetus, Luther's wretched beliefs about Jews and his wretched decisions about the Anabaptists, and wretched tendencies of the Anabaptist sectarian to think of themselves as the only people of God, I believe the Reformation was a profound work of God that both enlivened the church and altered Western European history for the better. the singular contribution of the Reformation, in all three directions -- Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist -- was that the gravity of the gospel was shifted toward human response and personal responsibility and the development of the gospel as speaking into the responsibility.
     This is not to deny the important and real differences between these three movements, but it is to say that the one things that emerged in each was a heavy sense of the need for personal salvation. I do not mean that such was not found in Roman Catholicism; rather, the Reformation said, in effect, that the "gospel" must lead to personal salvation- and the rest is history.
      But with that emphasis, regardless of how important is was and remains, came a price. The gospel culture began to shift to a salvation culture. Our contemporary equation of the word gospel with the Plan of Salvation came about because of developments from and after the Reformation.
"When I read todays thin and superficial reductions of the gospel to simple points, I know that that could never have happened apart from the Reformation. I also know that it didn't happen during the Reformation itself but as a result of the Reformation's reframing of the apostolic gospel-become-creed."-Scot McKnight

Now, briefly, the two documents mentioned above. I begin with the Augsburg Confession. The Reformation statements focused on the elements of the Christian faith that led to their differences with the Catholic Church, but in so doing the Reformation churches did not deny the Nicene Creed. Instead, they reframed the faith in ways that provided a lens through which they now saw the creed itself.
     In 1530, Philip Melanchthon presented to Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg a confession built of conclusions that were forming among the Lutheran Protestants. I draw attention here to the order and substance of this confession, which need to be seen over and against the classical order and substance of the Nicene Creed. Nicea framed things through God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and the God the Son articles were derived from 1 Corinthians 15. The Augsburg Confession converted the order of the "articles" into sections on salvation and justification by faith. It is precisely here that a "gospel culture" was reshaped into a "salvation culture" or, better yet, "justification culture." Here are the central categories of the Lutheran Confession:

God as Triune [as at Nicea]
Original Sin [major reshaping idea]
The Son of God [as with Nicea and Chalcedon [propitiation of God's wrath]
Justification by Faith

Then the Augsburg Confession covers the office of ministry, the new obedience, the church, baptism, the Holy Supper, confession, repentance, sacraments, order in the church, church usage, civil cause of sin, and a lengthy discussion of faith and good works, and it concludes with the cult of the saints before it discusses matters about which the Reformers were in serious dispute. I wish to make only one point: the Lutheran Confession framed the gospel in terms of salvation. It would not be inaccurate to say that the gospel "story became soteriology," or the story of Israel/Bible/Jesus became the System of Salvation.
     The Reformation did not deny the gospel story and it did not deny the creeds. Instead, it put everything into a new order and into a new place. Time and developments have somehow eroded the much more balanced combination of gospel culture and salvation culture in the Reformation to where today a salvation culture has eclipsed the gospel culture. What is important is that the genius of the Reformation's focusing of the gospel on salvation by faith alone comes to the fore also in the Genevan Confession. Like the Augsburg Confession, the Genevan Confession is framed even more by a salvation culture. 

-Scot McKnight "The King Jesus Gospel" pg 70-72

Friday, December 16, 2011

15 things I learned in 2011

Today I turn 25! Seeing as my birthday in near the end of the year its always rather easy for me to recap my year. Here is a little bit about what I learned in 2011 ...

(In no particular order)

  1. Faithfulness is not the equivalent to practicality. Sermons and bible studies are always climaxing with a practical point. I found that their are aspects of following Jesus that aren't going to be all that practical.
  2. I am a pacifist. Those who know me are probably surprised by this but I aspire to be free from violence and aggression. Its been quite hard! Like my pastor Dru says, "you can't solve the problems of this world with the solutions of this world." This has also effected my stance on the "pro-life" issue as well. Life is life! Fetus, infant, child, adult, soldier, civilian ... life!
  3. Premillennial rapture theology is just silly. Especially zionism!
  4. I let my guard down with Genesis 1-3. I am not defending creationism, I am not advocating evolution. But, I am not convinced that the creation account is defending one position over the other quite yet.
  5. I learned that my feelings, and my desires are not bullet proof guides in discerning God's will. There is far to much assuming the goes on in relation to knowing and discerning God's will. People treat God as if he is either a determinist, or a deist. In typical Seth fashion ... I disagree.
  6. It is unfair for me to generalize women based off of the women I know.
  7. ALL relationships are valuable. Don't ignore your relationships with friends of the same sex because the lessons you learn from them will probably be priceless if you ever get married. Of course, from me this is mere speculation.
  8. I have gained more peace about the possibility of not marrying. What I understand marriage to be is something I want but, within my culture and, what marriage means to most, it is often not the same. 
  9. Music doesn't matter all that much to me anymore. If I couldn't use music to proclaim and announce the Kingdom I would want to find something else to do, even more than I already do! I still love music, its just not the "end all be all" it used to be.
  10. I actually care about politics. I found a candidate that I believe in and support, Ron Paul!
  11. I don't believe the official repost about 9/11. I am not convinced that the terrorist who carried out the attacks of 9/11 were middle-eastern, radical muslims. I don't believe both WTC towers fell because a Boeing 757 hit each one. I don't believe an office fire caused WTC 7 to collapse. And, I am skeptical that a plane even hit the Pentagon. 
  12. I enjoy soccer. Especially USMNT!
  13. I have soul! The Lord has really helped me become a bass player this year. ... I play blues!
  14. I am learning not to be defensive. I have very little to defend and as soon as I get on the defensive, I am in big trouble and I alienate people and their points of view.
  15. Sometimes people will walk away and leave you, even whole families. It sucks! But, you can't strong arm people into reconciliation. It may take months or years - it may never happen - but you have to maintain that willingness to reconcile so that when it does, you are ready and willing.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

"The cosmos is a temple"-John H. Walton

In some of the ancient near eastern text, a temple is built as a conclusion to cosmic creation. But typically these are distinct through related acts. The natural association between them is that the creative acts are expressions of authority, and the the temple is the place where authority will continue to be exercised. Beyond this textual and ideological association, we can see that texts like creation and temple building by noting the absence of temples along with the absence of cosmic order as they recount the acts of creation. Thus the absence of  temple was sometimes part of the description of the pre-cosmic condition.

... Across the ancient Near East the temples were considered primordial and that cosmic origins at times were defined in terms of a temple element. It is important to reiterate that I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways.
    We can draw the connection between temple and cosmos more tightly when we observe that temples in the ancient world were considered symbols of the cosmos. The biblical text as well as the literature of the ancient Near East makes it clear. Ancient Near Eastern evidence comes from a variety of cultures and sources.

Both Sumerian and Egyptian texts identify the temple as the place from which the sun rises: "Your interior is where the sun rises, endowed with wide-spreading plenty." The egyptian temples served as models of the cosmos in which the floor represented the earth and the ceiling represented the sky. Columns and wall decorations represented plant life. Jan Assmann, presenting this imagery, concludes that the temple "was the world that the omnipresent god filled to it limits." Indeed, the temple is, for all intents and purposes, the cosmos. This interrelationship makes it possible for the temple to be the center from which order in the cosmos in maintained.

In the biblical text the descriptions of the tabernacle and temple contain many transparent connections to the cosmos. This connection was explicitly recognized as early as the second century A.D. in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. who says of the tabernacle: "every one of these objects is intended to recall and represent the universe." In the outer courtyard were representations of various aspects of cosmic geography. Most important are the water basin, which 1 Kings 7:23-26 designates "sea," and the bronze pillars of the earth. The horizontal axis in the temple was arranged in the same order as the vertical axis in the cosmos. From the courtyard, which contained the elements outside the organized cosmos (cosmic waters and pillars of the earth), one would move into the organized cosmos as he entered the antechamber. Here were the Menorah, the Table of Bread and the incense alter. In the Pentateuch's descriptions of the tabernacle, the lamp and its olive oil are provided for "light" (especially Ex 25:6; 35:14; Num 4:9) The word for light is the same word used to describe the celestial bodies in day four (rather than calling them sun and moon). As the Menorah represented the light provided by God, the "bread of the Presence" (Ex 25:30) represented food provided by God. The altar of incense provided a sweet-smelling cloud across the face of the veil that separated the two chambers. If we transpose from the horizontal axis to the vertical, the veil separated the earthly sphere, with its functions, from the heavenly sphere, where God dwells. This latter was represented in the holy of holies, where the footstool of the throne of God (the ark) was placed. Thus the veil served the same symbolic function as the firmament. To review then, the courtyard represented the cosmic spheres outside of the organized cosmos (sea and pillars). The antechamber held the representation of lights and food. The veil separated the heavens and earth- the place of God's presence from the place of human habitation.
     Scholars have also recognized that the temple and tabernacle contain a lot of imagery from the Garden of Eden. They note that gardens commonly adjoined sacred pace in the ancient world. Furthermore the imagery of fertile waters flowing from the presence of the deity to bring abundance to the earth is well-known image.

"The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries particularly the tabernacle of Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary."
So the waters flowing through the garden in Genesis 2 are paralleled by the waters flowing from the temple in Ezekial 47:1-12(cf. Ps 46:4; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). This is one of the most common images in the iconography of the ancient world. Consequently we may conclude that the Garden of Eden was sacred space and the temple/tabernacle contained imagery of the garden and the cosmos. All the ideas are interlinked. The temple is a microcosm, and Eden is represented in the antechamber that serves as sacred space adjoining the Presence of God as an archetypal sanctuary.
     From the idea that the temple was considered a mini cosmos, it is easy to move to the idea that the cosmos could be viewed as a temple. This is more difficult to document in the ancient would because of the polytheistic nature of their religion. If the whole cosmos were viewed as a single temple, which god would it belong to? Where would temples of the other gods be? Nevertheless it can still be affirmed that creation texts can and do follow the model of temple-building texts, in this way at least likening the cosmos to a temple.
     In the OT, polytheism would not interfere with the association of cosmos and temple, and indeed the connection is made. Isaiah 66:1-2 is the clearest text.
This is what the Lord says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the Lord.
Here we can see the elements of a cosmos-sized temple, a connection between temple and rest, and a connection between creation and temple. This in itself is sufficient to see that the cosmos can be viewed as a temple. That is precisely what we are proposing as the premise of Genesis 1: that it should be understood as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple. Other passages in the OT that suggest the cosmos be viewed as temple include 1 Kings 8:27, where in his prayer dedicating the temple, Solomon says, "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple that I have built?" In another, Isaiah 6:3, the seraphim chant, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord Almighty, the whole earth is full of his glory." The "glory" that the earth is full of is the same as that which comes and takes up residence in the holy of holies in Exodus 40:34.

1. In the Bible and in the ancient Near East the temple is viewed as a microcosm.

2. The temple is designed with the imagery of the cosmos.

3. The temple is related to the functions of the cosmos.

4. The creation of the temple is paralleled to the creation of the cosmos.

5. In the Bible the cosmos can be viewed as a temple.

     When this information is combined with the discoveries of the last chapter- that deity rest in a temple, and that therefor Genesis 1 would be views as a temple text- we gain a different perspective on the nature of the Genesis creation account. Genesis 1 can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what makes fat seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place God's presence. Though all of the functions are anthropocentric, meeting the needs of humanity, the cosmic temple is theocentric, with God's presence serving as the defining element of existence. This represents a change that has taken place over the sevens days. Prior to day one, God's spirit was active over the nonfunctional cosmos; God was involved but had not yet taken up his residence. The establishment of the functional cosmic temple is effectuated by God taking up his residence on day seven. This gives us a before/after view of God's role."

(Taken from "The lost world of Genesis One" by John H. Walton. Proposition 8: The Cosmos is a Temple. pages 78-85.

This video will get you in the ballpark with the position that John Walton so vigorously proposes. The bibles narrative, along side ancient cosmology, explains functional origins, not material origins. 

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Which terrorist are to be held culpable for 9/11?

Last night I watched this documentary called "Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup"

In this film they diagnose the facts surrounding the events of 9/11 from multiple angles and what they have discovered is unnerving. I would really encourage all of you to watch this documentary. There are many unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11 but the most unanimous assumption surrounding those events is that it was a terrorist attack ... but who exactly are the terrorist? This is far to compelling to simply be brushed aside ...

Also, hear what the worlds leading architects have to say about the collapse of WTC 7:

What do you think?

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Marriage vs. singleness?

First, the episode within Matthew 19 depicts Jesus' response to the Pharisees questions concerning divorce- ironically we have, and can, gain insight as to what Jesus believes marriage is- and is not. But, let us remember that Jesus is addressing divorce- not marriage and singleness. This passage is often quoted by many single men and women within a ministerial position to justify their status (or so I have noticed)
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I  say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Jesus is responding to the Pharisees here, so there understanding of the law needs to be taken into view)
Now the disciples are intrigued as they are looking on and listening to Jesus' current run in with the religious order of the day- their questions engender a sort of appeal ... sounds more like a dummy check to see if they understood what Jesus was saying.
      The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”-(Matthew 19:1-12 ESV)
Correct me if I a wrong but the "saying" that Jesus is referring to, the one that not everyone can receive, is that "it is better not to marry." It would be hard to imagine Jesus giving a position that was against marriage- but it would be equally as odd to imagine Jesus stating that one way (singleness) was better than the other (marriage). Jesus then makes an example out of the eunuchs and explains the different means to becoming a eunuch:

1. Eunuch from birth.
2. Eunuch due to castration.
3. Eunuchs due to celibacy (self control).

All of these forms of eunuchism are understood to be for the sake of the Kingdom, but the odd detail is that the aspect of his polemic that is it understood to be something that "not everyone can receive" hinges upon the individuals sexual desires and sex drive- leastways, that is the impression that I am getting. At this point the conversation moves into a broader framework for me- the Kingdom is comprised of both married couples and singles. Indeed, single individuals are a byproduct of sexual intercourse between 2 individuals and the only way for that to be ordained within God's good creation is marriage. At multiple points in Israel's history God commanded his people to be fruitful and to fill the earth and subdue it.

So, my position dwindles down to this. I am not convinced that singleness is more "Kingdom" than marriage. However, I am not comfortable saying that for every individual the choice is exclusively their own- as a christian, Jesus is Lord. He wants to partner with us! If we are the church and Jesus is our head then the pathway through life, whether that means by way of singleness or marriage, needs to be something the Lord ordains and arranges- and we submit to. I don't think its healthy to emphasize the need for one and not the other as they are both positions advocated by both Jesus, and Paul. My personal struggle is not to adopt a superiority complex now that says "I am single, and while you married people look happy, you shouldn't be because you are a spiritual failure (as one blogger has put it) rather its allowing the fruitfulness of God's mission for creation to be unraveled within the interesting relationships of the church body- comprised of both married couples and single individuals. Also, if I assume that position (and I will not) I would potentially be placing myself between a rock and a hard spot should I feel called by God to enter into a marital covenant in the future. Whoops! I think a big problem for us within this culture context is that marriage is something we have entitled ourselves to (we even believe that God has someone for all of us) We live in a society where the government will better meet your needs if you are married, and most churches won't hire you into a full time position unless you are married. The seems to be an emphasis upon the wrong vision.

A key point for me to remind myself of is that marriage is NOT about sexual desires, or romantic desires. Rather, marriage is about partnering together, committing ourselves to one another in order to establish God's kingdom in the here and now. Intimate relationships exist outside the confines of both marriage and sexual intimacy. However, for the purpose of procreation within the context of God's Kingdom the 2 must be married.  Obviously, this conversation is quite slippery! I haven't even introduced Paul's writings into this conversation BUT we need to learn to interpret Paul through Jesus' eyes ... not vice versa!

Indeed, it is not good for man to be alone but thankfully we have one another- marriage certificate or not.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Did Jesus preach the gospel?

These videos will get you in the ballpark as to what Scot McKnight has been kicking up so much dirt about as of late in his new book "The King Jesus Gospel" Though I have not read the book yet I have been following the dialogue surrounding the book rather closely. He ask a simple question: did Jesus preach the gospel? McKnight is confronting the tendency of so many people to interpret Jesus by way of Paul instead of interpreting Paul through Jesus. So, the question still stands, did Jesus preach the gospel? This gives rise to the obvious question of what is the gospel?