mbjones

While in Vegas, I did find the time to start and/or finish three different books. The best of those three is actually the third book in the Church and Postmodern Culture series called GloboChrist: The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn. It is the best short book on missiology I’ve read since Transforming Mission by David Bosch.

Within its pages, it looks at what the great commission means in light of the postmodern, globalized world that we live in (including the challenges to it and how it can shine, if the great commission is going to mean anything in the next age). It starts with an exploration of postmodernity and globalization and what it means to religion in general and how Christianity specifically should adapt. What intrigued me about this exploration was its use of Derrida’s idea that globalization marked a return of religion but instead of that return being in the form of Christianity, it has instead taken the shape of radical Islam challenging global imperial powers (as once the early church did with Rome). His summation of how a global, postmodern Christianity should look follows from this: decentralized, deinstitutionalized and indigenous (where universal concepts are understood in the light of specific circumstance — the cultures we all find ourselves in).

The book moves on from there to discuss postmodern ways of doing mission, the importance of incarnation, and specifically what a global, postmodern Christianity looks like (beyond the brief definition in the beginning pages of the book). On top of that, one of the most interesting chapters of the book looks at the challenge Islam poses to the Great Commission (and globalization/westernization/etc). I had not really considered Islam heavily as a major contender to globalization (or necessarily as the religion that the world was looking to, although I knew this to be more and more the case). He claims nothing short of a radical reinvention of itself will allow Christianity to triumph over radical Islam.

Anyways — when everything is tired together, this is a fascinating and thought provoking read. If you are looking for a good book to read on missiology/evangelism (in a broad sense), this is definitely one worth picking up. It will probably stay as a high recommendation of mine for quite some time (and I hope to be able to explore it more in this space as well). 5 of 5 stars, easily.

I’ve had numerous people over the past year or so tell me how much they thought I’d enjoy the Batman graphic novels. I thought about trying to read some last summer but didn’t know where to start. This past spring, though, I figured that out: Batman: Year One, Batman: A Long Halloween and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Yesterday I went to Borders to pick them up as plane reading material (just the first two). Curious, I started Year One last night and ended up finishing it as well.

Not really surprising due to the comic layout, it was quite an easy and quick read. By Frank Miller (the man behind 300), it details in Batman canon Bruce Wayne’s first year as Batman. Basically it describes the long absence of Wayne from Gotham City (to travel and learn all sorts of things, like martial arts) and his return to clean the city of evil. Exploring the seedy underbelly first, he finally realizes that he needs to be able to strike fear into the hearts of evildoers and takes on the person of a bat, fully becoming Batman. From there, his first year is spent catching criminals, bringing down corrupt officials and dodging the cops out to destroy the new vigilante. One piece of the story that I didn’t expect was the focus on Lt. Gordon. As most people know from the movies that have been made, Gordon is seemingly the sole decent cop in the city and Batman’s one guaranteed ally. Not so in Year One. He’s still the sole good cop in Gotham City but as a newcomer to the city and struggling with his own sins, sees it as his task to bring down this vigilante exercising outside the boundaries of Law. The novel ends with Gordon contemplating what needs to be done: he’s trying to seek justice and Batman is the only other one around him doing this as well.

As far as graphic novels go, this certainly kept my attention. I wanted to keep reading to see what was going to happen next. It seemed well drawn (although I’m not an expert on such matters). And Frank Miller is a good storyteller. All in all — I found it to be an enjoyable read. As far as criticism goes, my first complaint would be that it felt too short to be considered a novel. My second would be that I didn’t feel that it fully developed the character of Bruce Wayne. Gordon, definitely, but I’m still left wondering and questioning the persona of Batman. And so, because of this, I’d give it 3.5 stars out of 5. Definitely better than average but by no means the best that I’ve read.

Getting back to [Jesus for President][1] seems prudent, for a post at least, particularly as I’ve thought quite a bit lately about justice in our time. I’m not actually going to talk about that here (perhaps tomorrow); instead, I’m going to continue to explore more from my favorite section of the book: section 3 — *when the empire got baptized*.

One interesting part of it looks at pieces of idolatry in our time, where empire is subverting Jesus in favor of its own welfare. The epitome of this, as far as I’m concerned, comes from our president’s State of the Union speech in 2003:

>There’s power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.

Compare this to its original:

>There’s power, wonder-working power, in the precious blood of the Lamb

I find it rather offensive that we can so nonchalantly replace the *precious* blood of the lamb with the American people. As Christians, there isn’t anything that can replace yet we let our leaders re-write our liturgy (pushing Jesus right out of the picture).

Here’s another example from the same president:

>The ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. … That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (Bush, 2002 Ellis Island)

Compare that to one of my favorite scriptures:

>1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men. 5 That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it.

>John 1:1-5 (HCSB)

So, we have on one hand a president that says America is the hope of mankind and on another the author of John saying the Word (JESUS!) is the hope of mankind. And then the verse 5 is totally co-opted by our political system. I use this translation instead of my usual (NET) to show how its been taken word for word. It’s kind of scary to think how easily the sacred is subverted by the secular, and how no one seems to be batting an eye. And lest you think I’m railing unnecessarily against one party alone, the other does it as well: *This country is still the last best hope on earth* (Obama on Letterman).

What irks me even more though is when religious leaders of our nation willingly participate in the power of the world, disregarding the teachings of Jesus. Some examples:

>We have the ability to take [Hugo Chavez] out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. ~Pat Robertson

>You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I’m for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes ten years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord. ~Jerry Falwell

And then the pundits who vocalise the name of Christ (without any visible fruit of the spirit):

>We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war. ~Ann Coulter

This post is titled ***Idolatry Today*** and these are just a few of the examples that one could readily fine. They highlight ever more clearly, in my eyes, the need for the church to *step up and be the kingdom of God to a dieing world*. It’s time we stopped allowing the state to co-opt the kingdom of God by subverting her songs, creeds and scriptures.

I’ll leave you with a thought from a founding father of our nation, who I tend to think had a much better view of the role of church and the role of state:

>The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. ~John Adams

And then Frederick Douglass — slave, abolitionist, statesman:

>Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference — so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. … I love the pure peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.

I’ll let you think on what that *most deceitful one* is.

[1]:http://www.jesusforpresident.org

To continue exploring the eschatology in [The Coming of the Son of Man][1], I’ll next look at the narrative in Daniel. Specifically, I’ll be looking at the second portion of Daniel which is a description of three visions.

The first vision comes from Daniel 7. In it, four beasts are described as ascending from the sea.

> “I was watching in my vision during the night as6 the four winds of the sky were stirring up the great sea. 3 Then four large beasts came up from the sea; they were different from one another. 4 “The first one was like a lion with eagles’ wings. As I watched, its wings were pulled off and it was lifted up from the ground. It was made to stand on two feet like a human being and a human mind was given to it. 5 Then a second beast appeared, like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and there were three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and devour much flesh!’ 6 After these things, as I was watching, another beast like a leopard appeared, with four bird-like wings on its back. This beast had four heads, and ruling authority was given to it. 7 After these things, as I was watching in the night visions a fourth beast appeared—one dreadful, terrible, and very strong. It had two large rows of iron teeth. It devoured and crushed, and anything that was left it trampled with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that came before it, and it had ten horns. 8 “As I was contemplating the horns, another horn—a small one—came up between them, and three of the former horns were torn out by the roots to make room for it. This horn had eyes resembling human eyes and a mouth speaking arrogant things.

>Dan 7:2-8

The remainder of the chapter goes into further detail about the four beasts and what they mean and a *holy one* goes on to explicitly lay it out before Daniel: the four beasts are four kings/kingdoms and the *holy ones of the Most High* receive and take possession of the kingdom from them. The fourth beast proves to be the most interesting because of the horns and Daniel asks particularly about it. He’s told that the this kingdom will be different, that it will devour the earth. The ten horns represent ten kings and the final horn will be another king, more dreadful than the others, who will speak specifically against the Most High and His holy ones. But final judgement is in favor of the oppressed and the fourth beast is destroyed and the holy ones of the Most High receive the kingdom.

The second vision of Daniel depicts a goat defeating a ram. And again a horn on its head gets arrogant, destroying the saints and bringing about the desolation of the temple:

>3 I looked up and saw a ram with two horns standing at the canal. Its two horns were both long, but one was longer than the other. The longer one was coming up after the shorter one. 4 I saw that the ram was butting westward, northward, and southward. No animal was able to stand before it, and there was none who could deliver from its power. It did as it wished and acted arrogantly. 5  While I was contemplating all this, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of all the land without touching the ground. This goat had a conspicuous horn between its eyes. 6 It came to the two-horned ram that I had seen standing beside the canal and rushed against it with raging strength. 7 I saw it approaching the ram. It went into a fit of rage against the ram and struck it and broke off its two horns. The ram had no ability to resist it. The goat hurled the ram to the ground and trampled it. No one could deliver the ram from its power. 8 The male goat acted even more arrogantly. But no sooner had the large horn become strong than it was broken, and there arose four conspicuous horns in its place, extending toward the four winds of the sky. 9 From one of them came a small horn. But it grew to be very big, toward the south and the east and the land of beauty. 10 It grew so big it reached the army of heaven, and it brought about the fall of some of the army and some of the stars to the ground, where it trampled them. 11 It also acted arrogantly against the Prince of the army, from whom the daily sacrifice was removed and whose sanctuary was thrown down. 12 The army was given over, along with the daily sacrifice, in the course of his sinful rebellion. It hurled truth to the ground and enjoyed success.

>Daniel 8:3-12

Common interpretation places the ram as the kings of Media and Persia. The Goat is Greece (with the small, arrogant horn being Antiochius IV Epiphanes who persecuted the Jews and their culture mercilessly). Of interesting note between this vision and the next is that the period of 70 years in Jeremiah (Jer 25:11) is extended to 490 (in Daniel 10).

In the third vision of Daniel (starting in chapter 10), an angel appears revealing the book of Truth. He then goes into detail, covering the historical events surrounding the previous two visions and ending with the tail of the arrogant little horn (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) who sets his heart against God’s covenant, blaspheming God and setting up the abomination of desolation (an alter to Zeus in the temple). The angel also describes the invasion where many die, where some are seduced by the Greeks, and where some of the faithful are persecuted yet able still to lead others to righteousness.

I’d encourage reading the whole chapters, 7 through 12, as this is merely a quick summation to be referred to as needed as I proceed through this series exploring eschatology. It has been a good refresher for me reading through again, particularly with historical names, places and event to put onto abstract visions and ideas.

[1]:http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Son-Man-Testament-Eschatology/dp/1842272993/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208547682&sr=8-1

I posted briefly yesterday that I have been reading a book called [The Coming of the Son of Man][1]. I decided that I’d go ahead and put my notes and thoughts down in text to help sort things out. So…this post will start things off with the setup of the book.

[The Coming of the Son of Man][1] approaches eschatology in its original narrative and attempts to keep it in that content. Basically, it looks at NT eschatology as a story within a story within a story, describing and pulling from a variety of historical events — babylonian captivity, Maccabean Revolt, the Hellenization of the Jewish world, the Bar Kokhba uprising, etc. From this, eschatology is read from the first century (and not backwards from ours) and it assumes that the apocalyptic language is meaningful to its time (theirs, not necessarily ours). It also seeks to recognize when and where NT eschatology borrows from the OT (and from this, bringing the prior context into their present context and reapplying it). And finally the apocalyptic language of the NT is read in such a way that a integrated and consistent narrative is built (by reading the authors and their narratives separately and then looking for the ties that bind them together).

All of this setup I appreciated. I’ve shied away from reading much eschatology (outside of *Kingdom of God* theology) because approaches I’ve heard all seem to read from our time looking back, rather than the opposite (and they seem to come up with some fairly wild ideas!). I rather like the idea though of putting the words and language in its original context and letting the text speak for itself. Also by intentionally bringing in the Old Testament prophetic sources and letting them enrich the passages can only help in understanding. These I tend to think are fantastic guiding principles regardless of what you are reading. And in the interest of brevity, I’ll stop here for now. I have a feeling the next post could be longer as it jumps into the narrative itself (in Daniel!). Until then…

[1]:http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Son-Man-Testament-Eschatology/dp/1842272993/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208547682&sr=8-1

I’m about 3/4 of the way through a book called [The Coming of the Son of Man][1] by a fellow by the name of Andrew Perriman (the editor of [opensourcetheology.net][2]). It’s subtitle is *New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church* and it’s essentially the authors reading of the apocalyptic language of Jesus, Paul and others in the New Testament and how they relate to us today.

What’s intriguing about it is the perspective it comes from — preterism. Preterism is the belief that eschatological events described in the Bible occurred in the first century, shortly after the time of Jesus. Partial preterism (destruction of the temple, collapse of Rome, etc describe some but not all of NT apocalyptic) has always fallen within the bounds of orthodoxy, but full preterism generally hasn’t. And having never read anything about either, this text intrigued.

When I first started it, I presumed it would fall in the “partial” category but as I’ve been reading it seems to lean heavily towards “full”. While disappointing in part, I’m curious to see how things end. It would seem to me that a full preterist view would eliminate a lot of hope in the eventual parousia of Christ and I’m curious to see what might happen in a belief minus that hope. It also seems to force a stretching in interpretation of some NT passages, which didn’t sit super well with me. As such, I’m reserving final judgement til the end. I can say though, with 3/4 of it knocked out, that it is an intriguing read and certainly thought provoking. I’ll also say that I plan on interacting with it some here over the coming days and weeks.

[1]:http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Son-Man-Testament-Eschatology/dp/1842272993/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208547682&sr=8-1
[2]:http://www.opensourcetheology.net/

I’m excited because I just got this book in the mail: [The Coming of the Son of Man][1] by Andrew Perriman. It’s a look at eschatology for an emerging church (according to the sub-title). Should be a good read.

[1]:http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Son-Man-Testament-Eschatology/dp/1842272993/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207285566&sr=8-1

This past Tuesday I re-watched Pan’s Labyrinth with a special young lady who had never seen it. Besides forgetting how violent it is, one part jumped out at me: the fascist captain rationing food for the villagers. Now you wouldn’t necessarily think that something that would spring out at you, but in this case it did (particularly after having just read Jesus for President). As the villagers lined up, the captain walked by proclaiming “This is your daily bread” while holding out ration cards. “We provide your daily bread” proclaims the state juxtaposed against the Lord’s Prayer which proclaims God as the giver of our daily bread is an interesting thing to dwell on for a bit specifically because I think it tends to highlight the liturgy of the state quite well.

Now with this viewing I was immediately drawn once again to Jesus’ temptation in the desert. Growing up, this story of Jesus was always used to highlight temptation and how Jesus was like us and how God would provide in times of temptation and need but there is an underlying political thread that’s quite important as well. Jesus for President highlights this quite well, pulling heavily from Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder (and others as well). The first temptation in particular jumps out in the light of this scene:

4:2 After he fasted forty days and forty nights he was famished. 4:3 The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread.” 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Matthew 4:2-4

The basic gist is this: Jesus is hungry; the devil knows this and highlights that its within His power to take care of the hunger issue but Jesus points out the higher good — it’s the Word of the Lord that we live by, not just bread. Now its important to keep in mind (particularly when looking at the underlying political thread) that in the temptations, Jesus is entering into the Israelites story. I never caught this growing up, and if you didn’t, take a look back in Exodus:

6:16 “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Each person is to gather from it what he can eat, an omer per person according to the number of your people; each one will pick it up for whoever lives in his tent.’” 16:17 The Israelites did so, and they gathered – some more, some less. 16:18 When they measured with an omer, the one who gathered much had nothing left over, and the one who gathered little lacked nothing; each one had gathered what he could eat.

16:19 Moses said to them, “No one is to keep any of it until morning.” 16:20 But they did not listen to Moses; some kept part of it until morning, and it was full of worms and began to stink, and Moses was angry with them. 16:21 So they gathered it each morning, each person according to what he could eat, and when the sun got hot, it would melt. 16:22 And on the sixth day they gathered twice as much food, two omers per person; and all the leaders of the community came and told Moses. 16:23 He said to them, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Tomorrow is a time of cessation from work, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Whatever you want to bake, bake today; whatever you want to boil, boil today; whatever is left put aside for yourselves to be kept until morning.’”

16:24 So they put it aside until the morning, just as Moses had commanded, and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. 16:25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the area. 16:26 Six days you will gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.”

16:27 On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather it, but they found nothing. 16:28 So the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to obey my commandments and my instructions? 16:29 See, because the Lord has given you the Sabbath, that is why he is giving you food for two days on the sixth day. Each of you stay where you are; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

16:31 The house of Israel called its name “manna.” It was like coriander seed and was white, and it tasted like wafers with honey.

16:32 Moses said, “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Fill an omer with it to be kept for generations to come, so that they may see the food I fed you in the desert when I brought you out from the land of Egypt.’”

Exodus 16:16-32

To boil the above down, God delivered the Israelites and as part of His promise to them, He provided them with the sustenance they needed on a daily basis. The mana he provided wouldn’t last any longer than a day (except on the 6th day) and forced the Israelites to rely on God for everything. And this went on 40 years. Now, back to the temptation of Jesus: this part of the Israelite story is being recalled. Jesus is faced with a choice: enter into it by relying on God for sustenance alone or, as the devil points out, exploit the land for His sustenance and security. Juxtaposed against the state, Jesus could have realistically done what Caesar was doing: winning the masses by “bread and circus” but He throw off any temptations of this nature choosing God instead.

Again, as I begin with, this is good stuff to just sit and spend some time thinking and digesting. Ultimately it brings me into deeper consideration of the kingdom of God (and that’s always a good thing). Some questions worth consideration:

• Who am I relying on for my daily bread? God? The state? Some other Idol?
• If not God (and instead some other), how can repent of this?

Amy from Zondervan commented on my first posting about Jesus for President and clued me in to a “blog tour” going on by the authors of the book. It’s an opportunity for them to promote the book (and tours accompanying it) and an opportunity for people like me to perhaps interact with the authors. Rather than rehash what I’ve already written, I’ll let this post be a placeholder for those links (as well as some promotional pieces from them).My ongoing discussions:

• Post 1: Jesus for President, Initial Thoughts
• Post 2: Jesus for President, Imperial Language vs Gospel Language
• Post 3: Jesus for President, Temptation of Jesus (part 1)
• Post 4: Jesus for President, Idolatry Today

Promotional material:You can download a sample here! (it’s well worth taking a look at the style I mention in the first post)Tour Dates:

• JUNE 23 - GRAND RAPIDS
• JUNE 24 - INDIANAPOLIS
• JUNE 25 - CINCINNATI
• JUNE 26 - PITTSBURGH
• JUNE 27 - WASHINGTON DC
• JUNE 28 - NEW YORK CITY
• JUNE 29 - HARTFORD
• JUNE 30 - TORONTO, CANADA
• JULY 4 - CORNERSTONE FESTIVAL
• JULY 6 - OMAHA
• JULY 7 - DENVER
• JULY 11 - SAN FRANCISCO
• JULY 12 - FRESNO
• JULY 13 - LOS ANGELES
• JULY 15 - ALBUQUERQUE
• JULY 16 - LUBBOCK
• JULY 17 - DALLAS
• JULY 19 - ATLANTA
• JULY 20 - ORLANDO
• JULY 22 - RALEIGH/DURHAM
• JULY 23 - RICHMOND
• JULY 24 - PHILADELPHIA

I’ll keep updating this posting as I post more (and perhaps, just maybe, the authors will stop by and leave some thoughts…)

To write a little more about Jesus for President, I thought I’d go over one of the points I found quite interesting: the comparison of Gospel terminology with imperial terminology. Most of this I’d read before, but it was nice having it in the easy chart format.
Basilea:

• Imperial: the kingdom (empire) of Caesar
• Gospel: the kingdom of God (what Jesus went around proclaiming). Instead of Caesar at the head, YHWH is at the head.

Gospel:

• Imperial: an important pronouncement (generally something to the effect of an heir being born or a grand battle won)
• Gospel: the good news of Jesus (the Kingdom of God is at hand!)

Son of God:

• Imperial: The popular title of Caesar (and other kings and emperors)
• Gospel: Title given to Jesus (also, the truth in His case…)

Ekklesia:

• Imperial: A town meeting or public assembly (citizenship was bestowed, political concerns discussed, elders appointed, Caesar was worshiped)
• Gospel: What the early church was called

Parousia:

• Imperial: The return of Caesar to visit a town
• Gospel: The second coming of Christ

Savior:

• Imperial: Specific title of Caesar Augustus who “healed the chaos of Rome and brought it into a new golden age”
• Gospel: Another specific title of Jesus

All of the above paraphrased from section two of Jesus for President
There are other terms co-opted by the NT from the political sphere of life as well (these were just my favorites and ones I figured most people would recognize from the Gospel). It’s quite interesting to consider all of this and tends to open up some of the meaning of the NT. Co-opting things in this way isn’t just a private individual thing — it is a direct challenge to the status quo. Especially when considering the large groups Jesus was reaching — they would be able to see the challenge as the Imperial way was a part of life. Our vocab has changed significantly so it kind of falls on deaf ears nowadays, which is disappointing and leads to the privatized (and neutered!) religion that much of American (and western) Christianity seems to be.Just some more food for thought. Hopefully it also provides some context for the recently posted quotes (inasmuch why the early church fathers thought and spoke and wrote the way they did).