Craig Blomberg on Wealth

One of my favorite NT commentators is Craig Blomberg. He recently wrote about James 5 and the dangers of storing up wealth. He asks himself some very hard questions about how close he comes to identifying with the rich people of the passage (5.1-6). Then this quote:

But then if we are honest, we have to say that, by global standards, we are the ones who have lived in luxury and self-indulgence, especially in what we spend on our homes and on our churches, in how much we eat and how much we throw away on recreation and entertainment. At some point presumably this disqualifies any profession of faith in Jesus we might otherwise make. I wish I knew where that line was.

But that would only tempt me to get as close to the line as possible. Since I don't know, I have to consistently ask myself how I can do more and more to move away from the danger of being anywhere close to such a line. After all, the earnings on the investments I didn't give away in the last ten years have all disappeared in the last few months due to the financial crisis. Will I ever learn the lesson?

Read the full post here.

I Agree with Darrell Bock...

About Bible translations. Here is a snippet of a recent blog post:

So my point is to be a little skeptical when someone hails one translation as far superior than another, or especially when they hype it as THE one. Relax, more than one version might be good for your Bible study now and again. Often the best rendering will depend on the verse or unit in question and will shift from version to version. Most do a pretty good job as a rule. Where translations differ on a verse, you can know that there is an interpretive or textual wording issue present, if the difference is not merely the choice between different synonyms.

Find it here

Blue Parakeet - What did women do in the New Testament?

Scot looks next at some prominent women mentioned in the NT and examines what they did.

Mary (the mother of Jesus)
Mary has made many protestants nervous because the Catholic over emphasis on her, but she is still an integral figure in the NT. Scot believes that her level of influence had to be at the level of teaching. If early tradition is correct, Mary was a widow. Thus, she had influence in the NT in three ways. Mary’s influence emerges in her training of Jesus and of his brother James and she was critical in the formation of our Gospels. He states that Mary taught and was involved in the spiritual formation of Jesus and James.
Scot examines Mary’s song in Luke 1.46-55. He sees these of justice for the poor and marginalized, judgment on the oppressors, holiness and God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises. James carries these same themes in his letter.
Scot also asks a very pertinent question: Where do you think Luke acquired the stories he tells us in Luke 1-2? These two chapters are the birth narrative from Mary’s perspective. It is not hard to believe since Luke does discuss gathering information from eyewitnesses. There is no reason to doubt that Luke would have interviewed Mary as Luke may have visited Jerusalem with Paul. (See Luke 1.1-4 for his statement on gathering details).
I agree with Scot about Mary’s importance as an eyewitness and the song put into her mouth in Luke’s gospel was impactful not only on James but in the way Luke fashions his gospel. But also, Scot overstates his case almost putting Mary up as THE teacher of Jesus and James. He gives lip service to Joseph’s potential, but it was Mary who was the primary teacher. We do not know when she was widowed, but Joseph was a righteous man and the primary duties of teaching in the household would have been the father’s. So, while Scot provides some good points, he overstates his case for his purposes.

Junia
Junia is mentioned along with her husband Andronicus in Romans 16.7 as “outstanding among the apostles.” Thus, the inference is that a woman was mentioned as an apostle. Her being a woman was not important, but Scot feels what is important are her intelligence, her giftedness and her calling. (Once again, how do we know anything solid about her intelligence, giftedness and her calling? Not a word about these characteristics are mentioned. Overstating again).
Junia was noted as coming to faith before Paul and they were imprisoned with Paul (no doubt because they were believers and leaders among the Christians). Junia was a woman and an apostle. Scot surmises that since she was an apostle (not one of the twelve, there is a distinction that I will write about someday) she and her husband were recognized as having gifts from God. Those gifts involved such things as evangelizing, teaching, preaching, establishing and leading churches. I think this mention is very important in Scot’s case, and I agree, but once again not only does he overemphasize some things, but here he under emphasizes something important. Junia is mentioned along with her husband. At the very least she is a partner with him in his ministry and is not this lone, female apostle, but this is important that she is mentioned as an apostle.

Priscilla
It is important to note that Priscilla’s name is almost always mentioned first when she is listed with her husband Aquila. That was unusual in the ancient world (not impossible, but unusual). She may have had more of a prominent role in the ministry, but she may have has a more prominent social standing in the Roman world. She, along with her husband, is called Paul’s “co-worker” in Romans 16.3. Once again like Junia, she is mentioned along with her husband. But I do think it is important that Paul feels both women deserve a mention. So, we have a woman who was an apostle and another who was a fellow worker and teacher (see Acts 18.28).

Phoebe
I have already written at length about Phoebe (here). It is interesting that Phoebe is not mentioned along with her husband. She was both mentioned as a “deacon” and a “benefactor/patron.” She was the courier for Paul’s letter to the Romans. It was customary for couriers to explain their letters to their recipients. Phoebe may have been reading and explaining (expounding) Paul’s letter to the various house churches in Rome.

Scot closes with the statement that to tie these four women into the story of the bible, each of these women exhibits the oneness theme that begins in creation, is threatened by the fall and begins to become more and more a reality in Christ. Now, if women did all of this, why does Paul speak of silencing women in public assemblies? How does such silencing fit within the theme of oneness – of God’s work of redemption, restoring men and women into unity in Christ? Scot believes it is time to read the Bible with tradition (not through tradition) and perhaps challenge not the Scriptures but the tradition. He will look at the problem passages that seem to silence women in Paul’s writings next.

Blue Parakeet - What did women do in the Old Testament?

What did women do in the Bible? If we want to be biblical, this question needs to be asked and answered. Scot appeals first to the creation story and states that God created male and female as mutuals. The fall distorted mutuality and oneness became otherness and rivalry for power (Gen. 3.16). The good news is that the fall eventually gives way to new creation, but the church has far too often perpetuated the fall as a permanent condition. If there is any place in the world where this mutuality should be restored, it should be in the church. Ironically, it can be the least redemptive place of the week.

Miriam, Deborah and Huldah
Miriam
Miriam was one third of Israel’s triumvirate of leadership according to McKnight. He talks about her role as a prophetess who led the Israelites into worship with inspired words (Ex. 15.21). She is referred to by the prophet Micah as one of the leaders who brought the people out of Egypt (Micah 6.4). Scot sees in Miriam’s defiance strength, power and authority because she could call Moses into question.
I think Scot way over plays his hand here. Do I think Miriam is an important figure in OT history? Sure. Is she a part of a triumvirate (which implies co-leaders)? Hardly. God definitely places Moses ahead of Aaron and Miriam in this narrative and her selfishness and envy should not be seen as strength and authority.
Deborah
Deborah was called by God to lead his people in the period of the Judges. The judges were both political and spiritual leaders rolled into one person. If we ask what did women do, when we look at Deborah we see a woman speak for God as a prophet, render decisions in a law court as a judge, exercise leadership over the entire spiritual-social Israel, and be a military commander who brought Israel to victory. Deborah is definitely the star of song of Deborah and Barak. I think she is an important figure in the history of Israel. I think she makes a strong case for what Scot is trying to accomplish here, in a patriarchal society, a woman led the people into deliverance. However, opponents will point out (complementarians) that this period of the Judges is hardly any time in Israel’s story to follow as example. The judges throughout this period were flawed (see Samson and Jephthah). Plus, when the writer of the letter to the Hebrews mentions the great judges who exemplified faith, he does not mention Deborah, but mentions Barak.
Huldah
Scot calls Huldah a “Prophet above the Prophets.” In the days of Josiah, the Torah is discovered in the temple. When discerning who they should consult to see what they should do, they turn to Huldah, the female prophet. He could have consulted Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Nahum, or Habakkuk, but he chose the woman. She was chosen not because there were not men available; she is chosen because she is truly exceptional among the prophets. Once again, I think Scot is right, Huldah is a prime example of a woman who is important in the history of Israel. He is making his point, but I think he oversteps his bounds by calling her the Prophet above the Prophets. As far as we know, she has no school (disciples) and leaves no writings behind. She is important in this story and in The Story, but Scot overstates things.

Conclusion
From this brief sketch, we can repeat the question: What did women do? They spoke for God; they led the nation in every department; they sanctioned Scripture and they guided nations back to the path of righteousness.
I think Scot is right in pointing these things out, I just think he overstated things and made them appear greater than they actually were.
But, that was then, and this is now. What about in the New Testament? Did women’s roles decrease or increase? That is the next chapter.

Blue Parakeet - Test Case: Women in Ministry Intro

Scot begins part four by discussing his movement from a fundamentalist background, where there were few visible women in ministry, to his openness and acceptance to full acceptance of women in ministry in any role. He states that his view changed not by a world-view shift but in his actual study of the NT. He stated that we have to remember that the NT emerged from and therefore was shaped by first century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, including what it said about women. As he was writing commentaries, he continually sketch how he thought we should read the Bible – as a culturally conditioned revelation of God’s Word that needs to be worked out in a modern context. Thus, we have to understand that Paul’s directions to his churches were culturally shaped.

Scot understands the injunctions from Scripture against women serving in leadership roles. In the world in which the NT was written, generally women were perceived as inferior. But, as we read the Bible, there were plenty of exceptions, exceptions that reveal an undercurrent that would eventually alter the current itself. We do find female heroes in the hard patriarchal world of the OT. We find mentions of women in “leadership” roles in the NT. Scot encourages us to understand that the biblical context is cultural and that even the biblical teachings reflect that culture. Scot then states instead of seeking to impose that culture and those culturally shaped teachings on women in a completely different world and culture, the mutuality view summons Christians to the Bible one more time. It knows the story of the Bible is one in which Jesus Christ makes men and women one again.

In the next post, Scot will begin to examine, What did women do in the Old Testament?

Airborne Deer?

This was a headline in yesterday's Columbia Tribune:
Airborne deer hits Hallsville man’s car
There’s more to this story. (see here)
But does it remind you that the Christmas season is coming up and that flying (rein)deer pose a driving hazard?

Obama's Faith

The following excerpts are from Cathleen Falsani’s 2004 interview with Barack Obama who was then running for a state senate seat in Illinois. It can be found in its fullness on the beliefnet website.

After discussing the influences that he has been around (eastern, Muslim, Judaism) Mr. Obama discussed his own faith,

“So, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.”

While working with churches on community issues in Chicago, he discussed his movement from an intellectual approach to Christianity to a more “spiritual” faith:

“And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply. So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.”

He was asked if he responded to an altar call, he affirmed that he did. He was asked if he became born again:

Yeah, although I don't, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others. I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding…there's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.

He responsed to the question, who is Jesus:

“Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.”

His response to whether he had a “personal” relationship or connection to Jesus:

“Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

Obama discusses his reticence about the Christian call to evangelize:

This is something that I'm sure I'd have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.

When the interview tried to confirm that he does not believe in a “hell” for those who do not believe in Christ, he replied,

“I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That's just not part of my religious makeup.”

When asked if he believes in an afterlife (heaven), he replies,

“What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”

He defined sin as being out of alignment with his values. When asked what happens when one has sin in one’s life,

“I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment.”