Occasio

NT Wright at Fuller (#4): What is God's future for the world?

Session 4: "What is God's Future for the World? An Eschatological Vision for the Kingdom on Earth," May 3, 2014

In this final lecture, NT Wright called out the distinction that is currently being made in contemporary notions of eschatology (the theology and study of the end) between popular—usually fictionalized—beliefs about the afterlife and the final consummation of Christ, and those things that are actually said in Scripture. The distinctions are notable. We are actually told very little about what happens to the dead and how the end will come, and what we do have in the Bible is highly metaphoric. The thrust of Wright’s analysis lies not on the dualistic idea that heaven is good and the earth is bad, but that heaven and earth are much more closely linked than we like to believe, and that God is doing an ongoing work of redemption and re-creation that will one day be consummated and completed in the victorious and triumphant return of Christ. The problem of future-casting eschatological events and activities, as well as speculating about life after death, is particularly a problem—even an obsession—with Americans.

Here are a few quotes and paraphrases from Wright's lecture.

_______________

"If God raised Jesus from the dead, everything else is rock n roll."

The great Western dream of the disembodied view of heaven for the afterlife is still the dominant Eschatological belief. Paul continues to help his people think about God in new patterns.

The Jewish notion of the afterlife never included a vision of living forever in eternal bliss somewhere “up there.”

It's dangerous to think about apocalyptic as dualistic. It isn't. It's the story of God doing the work on earth of battling the illegitimate powers.

To give the creation up to the forces of entropy or evil is to miss the point of God's redemptive vision. The ancient vision of the Jews is for the world put right. God puts us right in the present so we can share in the work of putting his creation right.

Gen 1&2 is not a tableau, but more like a prescription for what was supposed to be and what will be.

The creation will be made new from the old, just as happened to Jesus. Resurrection is a vision for both Jesus and creation.

If you can play around with the harmonies and meters of those old hymns, feel free to adjust the words as well. (Speaking about bad theology/eschatology in hymns. Ex: How Great Thou Art: “when Christ shall come….)

Paul is teaching people to think theologically so that people will represent God with body and mind in preparation for the coming of Christ's kingdom.

The now and not yet challenge. God has done everything he has promised in Jesus, and will continue to complete that work in the presence of the Spirit. The two ages overlap. Creation is renewed in Jesus’ resurrected body and the covenant is renewed in work of the Spirit. This all comes together in the temple, and then in the temple of Christ's body.

God displaces supra-human powers and illegitimate human powers as he brings his kingdom in the Old Testament.

Paul's context for explaining eschatology. Rome would send out citizens to live in cities at the edge of the empire. If they encountered hostility, they would not be recalled to Rome, Rome would come in greater force to right the wrongs and restore order to the city.

The defeat of death means resurrection bodies for his people amidst a resurrected creation.

Where are the dead? That's the question that Love asks. New Testament says very little about the dead.

Resurrection is not life after death. It is life after life after death. There is some kind of intermediary stage we are not given many clues about. These bodies are shadows of the future self.

Heaven is never referred to as a place for the afterlife.

America is fixated on the afterlife and the destinations of heaven and hell. Why are we so fixated on the in-between stage? Heaven is wonderful but it's not the end of the world.

New creation has already begun and that must impact our theology and practice.

God wants us to be in and amidst the pain of the world and thus bring God into that pain so that his love may be displayed.

The good news is not that we have a secret way to leave the world but that God has a secret way to continue bringing his kingdom to the world. Unity and holiness of the church and its people serve the kingdom to this end.

The earth being burned up in act of consumation probably has more to do with a refining or revealing kind of fire.

The dangers are not so much whether one believes in pre- post- or amillennialism, the danger is in the driving agenda behind the belief in those schemes.

NT citing Tertullian: if a cannibal eats a Christian which bits go where in the resurrection [uncontrollable giggling from Mark Labberton] :-)

Hell: as long as you have in your mind that hell is some kind of torture chamber, that's not accurate. "No, I'm not a universalist."

_______________

Question: (Note: the questions asked of Wright at the end of his lecture were quite disappointing. This may have had more to do with the screening process. The questions Wright were asked to address focused on many of the popular issues that he was desperately trying to get us to think past, i.e. “what is hell?” “are you pre-, post- or ameillennialist?” and even completely out of the blue, “what about homosexuals?” The questions are certainly a reflection of the issues that people are consumed with these days (especially in America). It would have been nice to have some inquiries that actually reflected the theological methods Wright was using or the implications of his proposal. The following is one of many questions I had. I texted this one to the conference leaders, hoping to have it discussed.)

Environmental forecasts are dire these days and most Western Christians have very little interest in creation care. Theologically speaking, is there any hope for the ongoing restoration of creation, especially as Christians themselves may be significant contributors to its demise? This seems to be an insurmountable paradox.

NT Wright at Fuller (#3): Who are the people of God?

Session 3: "Who Are the People of God? Ancient Israel and the Nations, Modern Israel, and the Church--and Justification in the Kingdom of God," May 2, 2014 (PM)

Another fine lecture by NT Wright, this presentation provided the most room for controversy. The tension lay in Wright's depiction of the "people of God" as what Paul calls a "new humanity" that is "neither Jew nor Gentile." Following the lecture, a panel of Fuller professors (a Korean male, African-American female, and Hispanic male) challenged Wright, calling attention to the need for retaining cultural identity as Christians work toward unity and oneness. I felt these were very valid concerns and ask related questions at the end of this post.

________________

Main thesis: Paul is a Jewish thinker who's had his Jewish theology turned upside down.

A key Pauline foundation: God used Abraham to restore what Adam had failed at.

Paul has a consistent and clear view of who God's people are and it shows up in his letters.

Paul believes in a single continuous narrative stretching back to the creation event. We want to believe that something new has happened in Acts devoid of a backstory. Through Jesus he affirms and reinterprets the backstory.

Heaven and earth are not vertical and horizontal, they are interlocked and come together in the temple and the Torah, and in Jesus and the Spirit.

The Messiah represents Israel and vice versa. The Messiah does what Israel was supposed to. He demonstrates the faithfulness Israel was supposed to. Messiah is the living and dying embodiment of Israel. Monotheism and election meet in Jesus. The church is now commissioned to continue the story as the light of God to the world.

Romans 1:18-3:20, the redefinition of election. The passage is about Israel's vocation to be the light to the world. God called Abraham to undue the sin of Adam.

Three things accomplished on the cross (no single passage defines a systematic theology of cross, Paul says different things in different contexts):

1. Paul uses the cross to move the narrative from neg. to positive. Sin is vanquished. The divine meets the physical. The story of God meets the story of Israel.
2. Cristos victor, God overcomes the powers of sin and death. 
3. The astonishing act of divine love: God's love not only to Israel but through Israel to the world.

Israel's exile, like the exile of Adam from the garden, is a result of sin.

Election is now redefined around Spirit. How does it all work? It goes to work through the power of the Spirit, effective through the gospel. When the gospel is proclaimed and people believe it, that is the work of the Spirit; how else could it happen -- the gospel is foolishness otherwise.

The redefinition of the covenant people through the gospel. Covenant membership is now the identifying factor.

Justification takes place in the Messiah. All those who belong to him belong to the same family. All people who have messiah-faith are now part of the family.

We in the west are in danger of making the same mistake as Israel, that is, thinking that it's all about us, rather than about God and his salvific work.

Heaven and earth are not a long way away from each other, but are interlocking. That's the point of the temple.

_______________

Question: While I agree with the proposal of a new humanity in Christ, in the present-day multiethnic context, how do we also retain cultural distinction? Wright doesn't seem to have a good answer to this question outside of a few proof-texts. His approach to theology continues to be very classicist, Greek, Aristotelian. The danger is that other cultural representations of Christianity will hear only a white Westerner's interpretation of the kingdom. Wright answered this concern by saying that all cultures may retain their distinctives as long as they do not violate the basic tenants of orthodox faith. But this creates problems across cultures. Examples: Native Americans practicing pow wows, reverence for earth/spirits; African nationals/tribes engaged in polygamy; Asians who retain ancestral veneration, etc. It is not a simple task to decide what cultural distinctives are and are not appropriate, especially when white male Western theologians are drawing the lines of distinction.

 

NT Wright at Fuller (#2): The One Triune God

Session 2: "The One Triune God Amidst Religious Pluralism, Clashing Kingdoms, and Prevalent Evil,” May 2, 2014 (AM)

In this session, NT Wright did what he does best: provide a broad, sweeping overview of the biblical record to show how it influenced the development of Paul's own theology. He proposes that Paul was thoughtfully and purposefully crafting a new Christian theology centered on a Trinitarian, yet montheistic God. In Christ and through the presence of the Spirit, the mission of God that was begun in his ancient people is fulfilled. The radical nature of this proposal is lost on us today.

Here is what I heard Wright say....

__________________

Paul's Trinitarian theology. He never uses the word. He remains a classic Jewish monotheist, but adds Christ and Spirit to the nature of God.

The Shema structures life for the Jew and affirms monotheism as the core of Hebrew faith. "The Lord our God is one...." Not a philosophical analysis, but a confession in the midst of pluralist hostilities. It was a pledge on which one staked his/her life. Monotheism was radically different than competing religious philosophies. This God was not absent or remote, but lived with his people. There is one God and he lives right here. This all changed with the Exile. When 2 or 3 would study the Torah, the Shekinah would be with them as they were away from the temple. The gospel authors engage in presenting a picture of Yahweh returned to his people. Jesus is the new Exodus.

Paul is not concerned with Christ's divinity, that's already assumed. He is trying to define what God is up to in the work of Christ. Paul discovers Jesus in the middle of the monotheistic Shema.

What Paul was saying: Caesar claims to have saved the world, however, you Christians have to work out your faith in the midst of this pluralism as a stark contrast to the Roman Empire, like a star shinning in the night.

Paul's development of monotheism leads to a robust ethic of holiness and a call to unity.

In discussing meat, Paul is calling for a nondualistic way of engaging the world. Nothing is inherently holy or profane. (Ex: J.I. Packer giving up jazz upon conversion and then finding it again.)

Paul argues that this one God has one family not two. There is neither Jew nor Gentile. Now there is one new humanity, all those who believe in Jesus. Paul is telling a new Exodus story, using the Egyptian slavery and Babylonian exile as the backstory.

This is not about an analysis of law versus grace. Paul is consistently making a case for unity and holiness through the doctrine of revised monotheism set against a culture of pluralism.

The gospel was born into a world of radical religious pluralism. The ancient Greco-Roman world had plenty of room for gods and deities. There were many temples, which is why Paul redefines the temple for a new monotheism. Paul is busy establishing communities that declare Jesus as lord under the nose of Cesar who is a competing lord. Cesar is the first and foremost principality and power.

Incarnational theology is the key in which the music is set, but the tune is the coming kingship of God in Christ.

There were two theological problems in Paul's world: Illegitimate power that has taken over God's created order and sin within the people of God.

The death of Christ and the fresh presence of the Spirit are the answer to the problems of evil found in powers and sin that permeates the long history of humanity. If you confess and believe in this (as opposed to Cesar), you will be justified and saved.

Creation initiated by a singular God is a radical alternate narrative to pluralism. Arguing about the details of how that creation happened reduces the monotheistic importance of the narrative.

Speaking on a dualistic, split-level view of supernatural activities: We should not think of a spiritual world out there and a physical world down here. When heaven and earth come together, strange, wonderful and unpredictable things can happen.

A Trinitarian view of prayer: It is the vocation of the church to be in prayer for the pain of the world, standing in the presence of God not always knowing what or how to pray.

__________________

Question: How might we best see the pluralism of temples, principalities and powers so pervasive today that we often miss them? What would a radical monotheism look like if lived out in North America? What would Paul say to an entire country that thinks it has a divine mandate to be the people of God and order society both at home and abroad? Is the Trinitarian God a post-resurrection development or is it evidenced in the Old Testament as well?

NT Wright at Fuller (#1): Paul and the faithfulness of God

Session 1: "Paul and the Faithfulness of God--the Gospel for Runaway Slaves," May 1, 2014.

NT Wright's general thesis for this week's series of four lectures is that Paul was far more radical in his world than we have the ability to understand, and that if we did understand the counter-cultural nature of his message for the 21st century, we would be angry at him just as people were in his day.

Furthermore, Wright presents Paul as a brilliant thinker, a product of Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures, who intentionally sought to reshape the Jewish faith by nuancing historic monotheism with the fresh addition of Jesus and the Spirit. To do this, Paul continually references the overarching story of creation, failure and redemption, especially highlighting the stories of creation, Abraham, slavery, exodus, exile and rebuilding of the temple, culminating in the work of Christ. Not strictly and exclusively a systematic theologian, Paul was responding to multiple congregations in varying contexts, explaining the nature of God and witnessing to the work of the Messiah and the presence of the new Spirit.

Below are thoughts from Wright (not necessarily verbatims) that reflect this radical nature of Paul, specifically as its demonstrated through the case of Philemon and Onesimus. By way of introduction, Wright asks, "Why is Paul's message not riotous anymore, and instead is rather a leisure activity in study?"

Here are more of his thoughts.

__________________

When Paul asks Philemon to accept and reconcile with Onesimus his estranged slave, he is asking for a nearly impossible task in the first century. This is the heart of Paul's "gospel for runaway slaves." The easier thing to do would be to free or cover for Onesimus, or to demand his return to slavery, but Paul uses the situation of a runaway slave to demonstrate the reconciliatory power of Christ's message and mission.

The law and the Torah established the cultural markers of the Jewish people.

Paul invented a new discipline or task called Christian theology. It was not about creating new doctrines and cultural, religious markers, but was an entirely new way of thinking about faith. When we study Paul we are not studying a set of topics, but a new way of doing religion.

Teach someone a doctrine and you will keep them theologically sound for a day. Teach them to do theology and you will build a church grounded on Christ.

Theology has become a hobby for the intellect rather than a way of living in community together. This isn't about university degrees or intellectual pursuits.

We must stop giving 19th-century answers to 16th-century questions and start asking 21st-century questions listening for 1st-century answers.

Early churches were to be a new polis under a new kyrios, a new community that takes all thoughts captive to Christ, that is, sees the world through a new lens.

We have domesticated and truncated the writings of Paul, especially as we argue about Paul's sense of justification, use of the law, salvation history, apocalyptic expectations, or debate about his Jewish versus Hellenistic tendencies.

It's much better to study Paul in a department of politics or philosophy than theology. Religion was not a subject to be studied.

Widespread movement in America (exclusively) to think of Paul as an apocalyptic thinker. This rules out Paul's practical message for today and locates it in the nonhistorical future, denying a covenantal and incarnational theology. The story of Israel is not one of a smooth steady progression, but rather a story of bumps and mistakes, of failure and rescue - a salvation history. God acted shockingly, surprisingly and invasively just as he always said he would.

Paul urges the whole church, not just an elite group of intellectuals, to the vocational task of thinking differently about life.

The gospel for runaway slaves in Paul's day is the gospel of new communities for our day.

__________________

Question: If the gospel for runaways is for the whole church, how do we move past theological elitism and give the work of biblical interpretation back to all of God's people? How could we structure the worship life of a congregation, specifically what happens on Sunday mornings (i.e. sermons, performance music, etc) to engage people in theological formation?

Volf & Wright at Fuller: the future of the church

photo credit: @ChadJarnagin 

On Wednesday evening (April 30) we had the unique pleasure of hearing from both Miroslav Volf and NT Wright. These guys are theological rock stars, not in how they presented themselves (they're each quite down-to-earth and humble), but in the way that they were received by the hundreds of people who attended the event. It was wonderful to hear them interact with each other as Fuller President Mark Labberton hosted the event.

Labberton began the forum by asking each about their developmental journey toward the church. It was striking to hear two men from different cultures and with contrasting accents share some similar accounts. Here's a bit of their interaction.

NT: I didn't have a teenage rebellion; my rebellion was turning toward the Evangelical church. (Note: Wright is an Anglican)

Volf: To be a Christian was to be rebellious, moving from a Pentecostal family toward a liturgical experience. (Volf was raised in Yugoslavia.)

Volf: I was the only open and professing Christian in a high school of 3500.

NT: I was one of half a dozen out of 450 students at boarding school as an evangelical believer.

 

In querying about what he referred to as "the ecclesiastical industrial complex," Labberton invited Volf and Wright to complete the statement, "The church today is...."

NT: 250 parish churches in the poor rust belt of England, little churches struggling to hang on, that are aware of the local needs of their community and meeting those needs as best they can. This is the church being the church in the simplest way, worshiping, praying, celebrating Eucharist. There is no directive from anywhere. The local churches are worshipping, seeing the need and finding the strength to make the kingdom happen. They're not doing it to attract people to their services, but people are more likely to come because the church is working in the community.

Volf: The many churches throughout the world that are persecuted; the dedication that comes from hard conditions to stand strong and persevere. These people are giants because they would rather lose the whole world than lose their soul. Throughout the world, without any doctrinal training or policing, the same basic tenants of the gospel are proclaimed and lived out.

What worries me: leaders of other religions see themselves as religious guides and spiritual leaders, while Christians leaders see themselves as intellectuals, bureaucrats and managers.

Wright: The real church is not what we see in the newspapers, media and public eye, but what's happening at the local level.

Volf: People can smell hypocrisy from a long ways away, especially in larger powerful movements.

This beautiful thing we have in the repository of the gospel is attractive on its own, lets not mess it up. We try to help it along with our little schemes in an effort to generate attractiveness, but that's unnecessary.

 

Labberton also asked each theologian to comment about the future challenges of the church....

Volf: We will be faced with the question of what it means to be human, especially with all of the genetic issues in play today. Also, the widening gap between extremely poor and wealthy. And one more, the coming of people from other cultures and countries.

NT: Two things Paul would emphasize to today's church: 1) Unity; he would not understand the plurality of so many Christian entities, organizations, etc. 2) And Holiness; there is a lot of fuzzy thinking about ethics and practice of believers. There is a huge disparity between those churches who do social work and those who preach conversion for the afterlife; the kingdom is so much bigger than either.

Volf: Concerned with the functionalization of the church; meeting the ends of whatever we define it to be (the church as a means to reach the goal we define). We take God for granted as our servant, lacking lordship, fear and service.

Wright: We used to send missionaries to Africa and now we have them coming to us and reminding us of what church is all about.

 

And here are a few random responses to other questions from Labberton and members of the audience....

Volf: It's one thing to understand the gifts that you have, and it's another for people in the church to accept those gifts.

Volf: To evangelical churches, please sit down and have somebody read the scripture in your worship services, don't psychologize me. I'm a local church Episcopalian [uproarious laughter here]. I'm a cheerful Episcopalian (for liturgy) with strong free church tendencies.

NT: The idea that when you disagree about something you go away and start a new church is something we never find in the Bible; they would be horrified.

NT: Worries about the current form of denominationalism (though not a post-denominationalist): competing for doctrinal certainty and institutionalization through executive leadership (synods, councils) rather than allowing local congregations to wrestle with and work out the gospel.

NT: Recommends The Master and His Emissary. Thesis: western culture is schizophrenic -- right hand brain is culture and art, left hand brain is analytic. We've become a left brained society with arts on the fringes playing supporting roles at best.

NTt: There is an absence of sustained corporate public worship of scripture. This, not the explanation of scripture, is the purpose of worship, 

Miroslav Volf at Fuller: World Religions - the impact of globalization

This morning Miroslav Volf continued his discussion of world religions (see the first Payton Lecture below), this time with a focus on how globalization is impacting all of the major faiths. He contends that living in an ever-expanding global community is shaping Christianity, as well as other religions, in both positive and negative ways. On the upside, we all have access to each other in unprecedented ways, providing opportunities for dialogue, interfaith exchanges and proselytization. However, there is a tradeoff. Globalization is also causing a major shift in all religions, including Christianity, and, in general, causing a shift away from the central tenants.

Here is a summary of a selection of comments from Volf’s presentation. (Many of these I tweeted. Follow me at @TimothyNeufeld.)

__________________________

With regard to the tension between science and religion, it’s important to remember that sciences work to explain and manipulate the world; religion works to offer meaning and help through life. Nonetheless, they are often competing for the same territory.

Secularists define humanity in terms of genetics and biology, and religion is viewed as an ancient technology that is no longer needed. Religions assume a spiritual journey at the core and each religion includes this quest in the definition of humanity.

The challenge is not to gain a competitive advantage over science and technology; world religions work to connect people to the transcendent so that we can experience the fullness of human life. Faith and science do not negate one another. The Christian faith is not about the explanation of life but the meaning of life.

Globalization is transforming world religions in three ways. 1. Relation of religions with the state. 2. Relation of religions with economy 3. Relation of religions with environment. (Only the first two were addressed in this lecture.)

Religion and state.
No single faith can claim a divine political expression or integrate society as a whole.

An aspiration for power ends up using faith as a tool for coercive conquest. When world religions align themselves with political powers they are always distorted.

Argument: when it comes to religion's relation to politics globalization is a friend.

Decoupling religion from the state does not privatize faith.

We must give up the notion of religious control of society. Globalization is opening up the world for pluralized expressions of faith. Globalization provides the opportunity for religions to move back toward their original visions.

Economy.
For Job, respect of God meant more than all else including health and wealth.

For the Puritans: Godliness as gain, wealth as a sign. We invert this today: Wealth as gain, godliness as a means.

We now worry more about the means of faith to transform economy than the means of faith to direct us to the transcendent.

Globalization proceeds under the goal of happier more pleasurable life. Market driven globalization pressures faiths to give up the transcendent and focus on the mundane, also providing the means to a more pleasurable life. (i.e. If most of the people in my neighborhood have a swimming pool, the goal is to help all people have swimming pools.)

The mother of all temptations is to live and act as if we can live by bread alone. The danger is that world religions are always tempted to use faith for the procurement of more and more "bread."

Globalization to the nonwestern world looks like "Americanization" of the globe. (Comment from respondent.)

Do we simply evangelize the other of the world to become like us? (Comment from respondent.)

Gender, skin color and ability to speak English are all false indicators of intelligence in a globalized world. (Comment from respondent.)

Waiting was a significant stance of early church that we have lost. Waiting involves recognizing we're not in control.

"Progress" is always built on the lives of those enduring destructive forces. Can that be considered progress?

The "city on a hill" view of a Christian America can only be maintained by a heavy-handed enforcement of power. The project to "retrieve a Christian America" is problematic. Nations cannot be Christian. Only communities of believers can be Christian.