I think Ryan presents a false choice between Red Letter Christianity and Biblical worship. Moreland's words could just as easily apply to those who hold steadfastly to what the Gospels have to say about Jesus at the expense of the remainder of the Bible, insofar as they selectively apply biblicism to the gospel texts.

The problem with evoking the "freedom" to discard certain Biblical texts is that we may then choose which texts to discard. Ryan is not excited about eschewing James because he loves James, presumably because the book resonates with his worldview.

I am all for application, exegetical discovery, and new ways of thinking about the Bible. But the Bible is still God's word, and is to challenge the flesh, not reinforce it's proclivities. The freedom to ignore certain biblical mandates gives us Bible that is of the flesh.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 16, 2007 11:41 AM

We can worship the Bible, worship Christianity, worship a building, worship our worship, etc. The Evangelical 'calling' to value and uphold scripture can as easily be turned into an idolatry as any other calling. The calling to radically pursue justice can beome idolatry. The calling to love one's child can become idolatry. The creation can easily be worshipped instead of the Creator.

But none of these possibilities dispute the 'calling.'

I caution any of us wishing to call Evangelicalism out of any idolatry to bypass the need to label. Why?

Because labels too often come out of a self-righteous temptation: i.e. "I see something you don't and think that adequate to assign a diminishing label to you."

Critics are as prone to worshipping their insights as those being criticized. Hence, criticism must be immersed in love. And if that level of love is truly high--labels usually disappear.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 16, 2007 12:22 PM

I also love N.T. Wright's assertion regarding scriptural diversity, for example, that accounts of Christ's death and resurrection that differ in details but affirm essentials are evidence of the veracity of those essentials because in real life, multiple witnesses tend to have diversity in their testimonies

Yeah, that makes sense. It's not like the early churchman had to add anything to Mark to make it affirm the essentials more correctly...

Posted by: | November 16, 2007 1:05 PM

Yes, good idea...let's create even more labels for different types of Christians than there already are. That will make it even easier to denigrate the people we don't like and lump other Christians into groups. It's so much easier to say "Evangelicals believe X and Y and therefore they're wrong" or "liberals believe A and B and therefore they're stupid" instead of engaging individuals on a person by person basis. Let's add Red Letter Christians and Biblians to the mix so we can further seperate ourselves from our brothers and sisters in Christ. "I'm not like those people over there!"

Posted by: Eric | November 16, 2007 2:38 PM

I am very much in agreement with Ryan's thoughts, but I also really love letjusticerolldown's:

"Because labels too often come out of a self-righteous temptation: i.e. "I see something you don't and think that adequate to assign a diminishing label to you."

Critics are as prone to worshipping their insights as those being criticized. Hence, criticism must be immersed in love. And if that level of love is truly high--labels usually disappear."

Thanks for such good dialogue on this one.

Angie

Posted by: sixtyfeetunder | November 16, 2007 2:52 PM

I think one thing needs to be made clear in this discussion: the bible is a totally human document. It is written by humans to humans. It is an ancient set of books with an ancient and a sometimes outdated world view. I is a set of stories written to ancient Israel at the time of the destruction of the first temple (OT) and to the Jews at the time of the destruction of the second temple. Contained in the pages of the bible are abhorrent acts of violence, genocide, sexual depravity, etc. all in the "name of god." But also contained in the pages of the bible are very positive things: love, generosity, forgiveness, patience, mercy, kindness, etc. It is these positive characteristics that should inspire us because they come from the human heart and mind which means it is possible to do them. Jesus is a human possibility!

I hear so much from some Christians that Jesus "came" to keep the law perfectly, or to live a sinless life, or other absurd statement, for us because we are unable to do so. We postmodern Christians should not buy into that logic because it is a cop out. We should be inspired to follow Jesus because he is a human possibility not because we hope it will save our skins someday but because that is what it means to be human.

Posted by: jackfate | November 16, 2007 3:49 PM

kevin s.

Well said.

Posted by: CJTiger99 | November 16, 2007 4:26 PM

Jack Fate liked Jesus as human, but not God, because we can see then the hope for human possibility.

I guess, without God, is what is parsed there.

Knowing myself as I do, I'm afraid of my human possibilities. Without God's divine help, all roads don't lead to Rome, but to hell.

I don't know myself even as I am known. Who can? The depths of human experience, depravity as well as achievement haven't yet been plumbed. If the simply human is the only reference, and I'm as fully human as the next guy, how can I ever know myself well enough to be sure I'm not embarking on a course of unintended consequences?

Others aren't much help, either, in a world where we're all become masked and anonymous - without the divine to break us free.

Posted by: Uncle Sweetheart | November 16, 2007 5:15 PM

Steve,
OK--I don't want to derail the discussion, but I can't resist responding to your question, so here's my nutshell (I should mention it is a coconut shell). When Galileo discovered the Earth wasn't at the center of the universe, the Church was threatened in that they thought it meant God wasn't at the center. Young Earth Creationists are threatened that evolution means God didn't create us. They are threatened that the age of the earth means that God couldn't possibly think humans have much value. They will say that they think all of this diminishes God. However, here's the twist. I really think it threatens them because it diminishes US. And from my perspective, science is discovering what God pointed out to Job--just how very tiny and inconsequential we really are, and thus, science actually puts us in a RIGHT relationship with God. As David says, "who is man that you are mindful of him?" I always envision him looking up at a perfectly clear night sky and billions of stars--who hasn't felt miniscule seeing that? And yet, God is bigger than that because He created it...and eternity is far more incomprehensible because it is longer than 12 billion years (age of the universe)...

That's my take on it--I think deep down, we just don't want to admit how tiny and insignificant we really are--and hasn't that essentially been the source of all sin since Adam and Eve? They ate of the fruit because they wanted to be like God. What science has taught us, and rightly so, is we will never be like God. I think Christians can embrace that so we can truly comprehend a right relationship with God. It's humbling, as it should be.

On another note--many think if Genesis is wrong, then the rest of the Bible might be too. They often aren't open to the possibility of allegory or metaphor, even though the rest of the Bible is chock full of it. It doesnt' mean the Bible is wrong--moreso, the Bible was written by people with a very limited language as compared to ours. So, often, they had to resort to metaphor--God is a rock. God is a mighty rushing wind. How can our piddly human language describe God? How can early Hebrew language describe complex scientific processes? It couldn't, so we're given a story to encapsulate what God did in language we could understand at the time.

That's my take--and I apologize if I derailed the discussion--although perhaps the above paragraph is applicable.

Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 6:20 PM

Jack Fate - Uncle Sweetheart - Masked and Anonymous?

Ha

Posted by: | November 16, 2007 6:35 PM

anonymous poster (using some kind of moniker is really helpful--especially if you intend to post again. When you do post again, it is difficult to know if you are the same person, or another equally anonymous poster--I'll even give you a name. Igor! My other cat. It's very high praise, you should understand).

Anyway, I found myself saying "huh?" at your correction of Kevin, so upon re-reading his post, he did indeed say Jesus was not human. I also am very surprised by that, and thanks for pointing it out.

Kevin--did you mean to say that, or was it a simple mis-statement? I have to agree with "Igor" above--Christ was both human AND divine. the only way He could have overcome the temptations we humans face is to fully be human.

Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 8:03 PM

Many evil, wicked things have been done and/or defended in the name of "Christianity." Some used it to defend slavery, Hitler used it to defend his abominable actions. The KKK claimed to be a Christian organization. How did they do this? By allowing external interpretation of scripture.

The Bible is important because we humans are fallen creatures. It is a dangerous thing to place experiences ahead of doctrine and scripture. We cannot possibly think that we are able to discern truth within ourselves. "The heart is deceitful above all things. Who can know it?" And, "All of a man's ways are right in his own eyes, but the Lord judges the heart."

God gave us scripture for a reason. He knew that we need it.

Posted by: Bradley | November 16, 2007 10:03 PM

"he did indeed say Jesus was not human. I also am very surprised by that, and thanks for pointing it out."

Blasphemy! Burn that heretic at the stake, man! All in the love of Christ, of course.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 16, 2007 10:57 PM

squeaky and kevin s
I thought I had put my name on my post. I'm sure I had. ???
Igor! I guess I'll consider it 'very high praise'.
Sorry I failed to notice and correct it earlier.

In my opinion, labeling and naming 'groups' is a problem for the body of Christ. kevin s, you've told me in the past how it is convenient for you. For me, it makes the possibility of dismissing someone too easy. I trust you are less vulnerable to that error than I. So, I'd rather not have another organization; but I do wish we would take seriously the teachings of Jesus. To me that may mean changing our views on our previous understandings.

Deryll

Posted by: Deryll | November 16, 2007 11:17 PM

' I also love N.T. Wright's assertion regarding scriptural diversity, for example, that accounts of Christ's death and resurrection that differ in details but affirm essentials are evidence of the veracity of those essentials because in real life, multiple witnesses tend to have diversity in their testimonies—while Da Vinci Code-type conspiracies get their stories straight with rigid uniformity'

Mark 14
57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

These guys agreed on the essentials, but differed in the details.

That is why it was obvious even to the judges at Jesus trial that they were false witnesses.

Paul says Jesus became a spirit.

In Luke's Gospel, Jesus denies being a spirit.

That is what I call unformity!

Posted by: Steven Carr | November 17, 2007 4:30 AM

The logical question is, how does it become watered down? I submit that it becomes watered down when Christians quit studying the Bible and resort to making it all about their feelings and experiences.

My extremely conservative childhood church has changed little since I first went there, and yet I find it irrelevant today -- because, though it hasn't watered anything down doctrinally, it doesn't move outside its sphere. As I mentioned, I learned how Christianity really works by watching King.

Christianity became accepted and then watered down because, as Steve Camp said, "the devil does not want to destroy the church; he wants to join it." Constantine saw it as an up-and-coming force in the Roman empire and wanted to get in on things, so he offered it sanction.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 17, 2007 10:51 AM

That's my take on it--I think deep down, we just don't want to admit how tiny and insignificant we really are--and hasn't that essentially been the source of all sin since Adam and Eve?

Squeaky that was pretty good . But you know I see it just the other way , its many in the science world today , and in the culture of academia who seem to have the problem with the inflated egos . You do realize of course the Bible tells the world was a sphere, the science of the day was speaking about falling off the end of the earth ? But I got your point , and it makes sense , your pespective is one of science know all , and the Bible Believers are all worried about the start of the world being proven millions of years old . Thats how you see it ? Us against them ?

My public school banned its a Charlie Brown's Christmas , and the science teacher at one of the schools just wrote a letter to the editor about Christians and fairy Tales , and Intelligent Design . Which from I gather has nothing even to dow with Genesis . Many in the Science world have a problem with God , which I guess makes sense because God does make the smarty pants of today look pretty silly at times .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 17, 2007 1:03 PM

Mick--how many scientists do you actually know? I'm just curious, because it seems you have broadbrushed them all as arrogant smarty-pantses.

It doesn't have to be us vs. them. check out Francis Collins, and you will understand what I mean. Check out Hugh Ross as well.

NM--true--nowhere in the Bible does it say the Earth is only 10,000 years old (er, 6,000, actually). You pretty much have to believe Adam and Eve sinned mere seconds after they were created. Who knows how long they hung out in the garden before the fall? It could have been millenia just as easily as it could have been minutes!

Bradley,
"The logical question is, how does it become watered down? I submit that it becomes watered down when Christians quit studying the Bible and resort to making it all about their feelings and experiences."

I think I know what you mean. I see the "seeker-friendly" movement kind of like that. Christianity lite, with more emphasis on making people feel good. I also see much in my own experience having been that way--worship began to be about how it made US feel (The comment "I didn't get anything out of the worship this Sunday"--how many times I have heard and said that). We're very emotional beings, and we can and do experience God emotionally, and I think God wants that, but it nevertheless isn't our focus.

Posted by: squeaky | November 17, 2007 1:24 PM

You do realize of course the Bible tells the world was a sphere, the science of the day was speaking about falling off the end of the earth? But I got your point, and it makes sense, your pespective is one of science know all, and the Bible Believers are all worried about the start of the world being proven millions of years old.

Well, here's the problem with the Bible: It's a literary document, not a scientific one, written in a way that the people of that day and culture could understand. I saw that even as a child, and as a writer I understand that today.

Many in the Science world have a problem with God, which I guess makes sense because God does make the smarty pants of today look pretty silly at times.

Well ... that's not what really happens. When you consider that religious ideologues in the Bush Administration have been trying to subvert science for the sake of authority, I can understand why scientists can get pretty iffy about "God" -- it's not so much Him but some of His so-called followers that they don't want to deal with. I have a friend whose nephew was really turned off to God while attending a Christian high school that didn't allow any kind of critical thinking.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 17, 2007 3:39 PM

Just every day elites of this world that God makes to look foolish.

The religious ideologues always wanted to be the elite themselves, but God has made them look foolish in the process. That's my point.

Who ever Bush really is, sincere or not, the Iraq war took the opportunity away he had as promoter of the Faith. Too bad, sound like your glad, that is too bad too.

I saw that coming, way back in the early 1980s. BTW, Bush never represented the faith I subscribe to, and I've been a Christian for nearly 30 years.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 17, 2007 4:25 PM

I don't hate the President; I am terribly disappointed in what's happened, though, and especially so because it's been somehow wrapped up in Christianity, when the political process is such that it just isn't so.

The good aspect of this is that David Kuo has made clear just what went wrong spiritually.

The failure isn't just his, or those of the others in the administration, though everyone should be held accountable, just as the constitution provides for - the failure is genuinely ours, as well. Nobody can get off the hook by pointing the finger at someone else when the train goes off the tracks.

In a democracy, we tend to get just what we deserve.

Posted by: | November 17, 2007 4:34 PM

"Anyway, I found myself saying "huh?" at your correction of Kevin, so upon re-reading his post, he did indeed say Jesus was not human. I also am very surprised by that, and thanks for pointing it out."

Jesus was not human, but took the form of a human. I don't know what is controversial about that. Certainly, he is no longer human, and no human can offer themselves as a sacrifice. But certainly, he came to teach us how to live as men, and to set an example of how we should live.

"Somehow we need to move beyond a literal understanding of the bible. Instead of asking “did these stories really happen” we should be asking what do these stories mean?"

I'm all for asking what these stories mean, and I am beyond the point of asking whether these stories happened because I know they did.

"To call Jesus “Lord” means that Augustus is not."

While this is true, it is insufficiently so. To call Jesus Lord is to say that family, country, money, and even our own lives do not reign supreme. But God has never shown himself to be content with that definition. He was furious at those who made other Gods for themselves and worshipped them. The prophets actually spoke at length about this, when they weren't calling for more social programs.

"Calling Jesus Lord today has lost that political edge it had in the first century and that is what is missing in Christianity today."

Perhaps that is because the political edge is not the point. We have a lot of Christians in this country, and many Christians have led this nation. Rome was Godless from beginning to end. Now, I am not arguing that this is a Christian nation, but I do not believe that our faith is any les authentic simply because our governmental systems are more tolerant of Christians.

"Actually, he describes himself as the “son of man.”"

Well, he describes God as his father, but this isn't worth splitting hairs over.

"My concept of what God is like is Jesus. He was a fully human being (son of man) with the “divine” ability to live a nonviolent life, love unconditionally, show compassion wastefully, and care enough about changing the world to die for what he believed in. That is the Jesus we should follow and imitate."

Talk to me about changing the world. It seems to me that Jesus wants us to live radically counter to the world, but I don't see where we are called to change it. Now, we may change the hearts and minds of the people, and I suppose politics is one of many efforts to do so, but I see no evidence that Jesus lived his life to chiefly political ends, as you seem to imply here.

The world, without Christ, is beholden to the enemy, whose fundamental nature will never change. To pretend that we could render the world as heaven is to deny the fact that, since the dawn of man, Satan has sought our destruction.

"Maybe not... totally."

Certainly not. Not even close.

"Ghandi and King to name two."

Both fell far short of the mark. King did a lot of great things, but his attitudes toward women and faithfulness were, well, less than Christlike. If you describe Jesus as Lord, Ghadhi rejected Christ as lord, at least outwardly. He may have had a heart conversion, but that is not documented, and his public rejections of Christ as his Lord were certainly sinful.

What you are advocating, though I suspect you'll bristle at the notion, is a works based faith. Our achievements and efforts on behalf of good causes (the world, of course, determining what constitutes a good cause) determines are likeness to Christ.

That is from the purpose of the gospel, whether you look to the gospels as real stories, or symbolic of a larger story.

And this is the trouble when you refuse to believe the stories in the Bible actually happened. You are forced to construct them as human narratives (as Crossan does), which are devoid of divine intervention.

The purpose of the story of Job was not that he suffered ably. It was not some trite admonishment that we ought to look to "the light at the end of the tunnel". But if you believe that it didn't happen, that Satan did not literally set his sights on one of God's faithful, and that God's faithful servant did not take up his sword of faithfulness, then you are left with banality.

"It is about changing the world today not about saving or own skins or going to heaven."

And I would argue that it is about neither, but about glorifying God. Heaven is the eternal state of glorifying God. If we decide that our own accomplishments are, or can be, impressive, we reject him outright. He is reduced to the benevolent "father in the sky" whom we both categorically reject as a true portrait of God.

And, make no mistake, our skins need saving. There is a very selfish interest at play in accepting what Paul describes as "sheer gift".

Posted by: kevin s. | November 17, 2007 5:14 PM

I think I get your point, Rick. I think people often get so ingrained in their interpretation of Scripture, they don't question if they have interpreted it correctly--AND they are afraid to do that because they think they are so correct, that to question it equates to blasphemy in some's minds.

A year ago, I thought I knew what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of God. and then my pastor mentioned that he was thinking about it more and investigating what it means. I couldn't believe it--how could a pastor of over 30 years not get it? So, I started investigating it more myself, and realised I don't actually have a clue--what I thought it meant, I no longer think is what Jesus meant...

I have to say my own personal investigations of Genesis have been pretty eye-opening. As a former young earth creationist, my concept of God has been blown up far larger than it ever was before as I stopped looking at science as a threat, but rather as an illuminator of the Word and of God's nature.

If scientists get snarky about Creationists, it is because Creationists often disrespect them and broadbrush them, and close-mindedly refuse to learn anything that they think might threaten their view of Scripture (a view derived from a superficial reading of the Bible, I might add).

Posted by: squeaky | November 17, 2007 5:29 PM

"It's outright heresy, leaning toward what's known as Gnostisicm. If you're saying that he never sinned like a human you're correct, but he certainly was a human."

That's not Gnosticism, and I concede that he was tempted to sin, as a human would have been. But, ultimately, he was not human. He was incapable of sin (we are all capable of sin), and born of a virgin. His life and faith were perfect. My point was to counter Jack's contention that Jesus was, ultimately, human.

If you are arguing the Jesus was, at one point, a homo-sapien, in the scientific sense, then we have no argument.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 17, 2007 6:19 PM

kevin s.,
Jesus is still a homo-sapien, just a new-style one. The miracle of the incarnation is that Jesus is both God and man. However, I do see your point that Jesus was not a man in the sense that he was born into sin, and therefore under God's wrath.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 17, 2007 6:26 PM

"Constantine saw it as an up-and-coming force in the Roman empire and wanted to get in on things, so he offered it sanction." Rick Nowlin

Rick, this week I assigned one of my classes to write a five-page essay arguing why Constantine's amalgamation of church and state was a good/bad thing. Do you believe it was a conscious attempt by the American founding fathers to attempt to reverse the trend Connie inaugerated?

Posted by: canucklehead | November 17, 2007 9:31 PM

...let us pray that Squeaky will once again return to affirming the Scofield Reference Bible as the ultimate Truth once for all...

Posted by: canucklehead | November 17, 2007 9:35 PM

He was incapable of sin (we are all capable of sin), and born of a virgin. His life and faith were perfect. My point was to counter Jack's contention that Jesus was, ultimately, human.

Consider that He got tired and slept; he wept; He told Thomas to put his hand into His hand and side after His resurrection. And you're going to say that He wasn't human? Puh-leeze! Also, we were born into sin, not just capable of sin.

Rick, I have examined the context and I'm afraid that I see no reason to accept your interpretation.

Consider that context: Nicodemus had come to Jesus at night because he was impressed with his teaching and miracles, and Jesus threw him a curve ball. Now, to this day the Jews do not place a great deal of emphasis on the afterlife, so since one Jew was talking to another He had to have been referring to physical life.

Interesting to see Sojourners sliding towards theological as well as political liberalism.

I don't understand why you would say that.

Do you believe it was a conscious attempt by the American founding fathers to attempt to reverse the trend Connie inaugerated?

Not really. The American Revolution actually had a strong Scots-Irish influence, and if you know anything about the Celts, you know they don't put up with any mess. That said, Calvin also was an influence; he wanted to get the state out of the church.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 17, 2007 10:56 PM

I am not familiar with the particular conservative church about which you were speaking, but I would guess that if you asked random parishoners to defend their beliefs with scripture, they could not do it, (at least not accurately and effectively) not because those beliefs are not reconcilable with scripture, but because they have not studied the scripture.

You would be wrong about them -- in fact, when I returned to that church temporarily about a decade ago after over 20 years away one of the elders I had known from way back eagerly extended me the "right hand" of fellowship, saying, "We know what you believe." They taught me the Scriptures, in both word and deed, but from what I could tell it didn't go much beyond the church walls.

See, churches have their own distinct culture with certain unspoken (and often unconscious) assumptions that have nothing to do with the written Word of God and that in fact color their understanding of the Bible. My current assembly became aware of this in the early 1980s and made some painful but necessary changes because it needed to adjust its ministry for some new challenges. My current pastor has been denounced in some circles as "liberal," but -- trust me -- he isn't.

That was why Ben Wheaton's recent post about Sojourners supporting theological liberalism was simply inappropriate -- it may actually be inaccurate. One man's "liberalism" may be another's "conservatism."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 18, 2007 12:01 AM

Rick,

You said, "See, churches have their own distinct culture with certain unspoken (and often unconscious) assumptions that have nothing to do with the written Word of God and that in fact color their understanding of the Bible."

I think this is where we agree. You could point it out in conservative churches. I could point it out in liberal churches. If we sat down and discussed theology, we could probably point it out in each other. This is precisely why I believe that the Bible is so important. What makes my opinion any better than yours? Nothing. It is important that we contend for the truth and that both sides submit to God's word, not OUR word which we attribute to God. (That is not a subtle insult to you, I am speaking in generalities and both sides are guilty of this.) My contention is that the solution is greater emphasis on scripture, not less.

Posted by: Bradley | November 18, 2007 12:30 AM

1 John 4:1-3: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard is coming and is in the world already."

kevin, you might see this passage either as supporting your argument, or not. But I think you would do better to argue with respect to it. Too many might read your claims who read this passage a certain way, and conclude that you have never seen it before. Particularly, you have been accused of heresy and Gnosticism. If you can make your case relative to this passage, some might accept that you have an interpretation worth considering; otherwise, many would be content with labeling you this way.

The label "Christian," like any other label, should be with respect to something, in order to be meaningful. I think the problem we now have is that after 2000 years or so, people believe they can use it as they please, without reference to anything that would justify it. No one is so thoroughly compelled to be Christian that they should change what Christianity is, in order for the label to apply.

Whether we like it or not, I think that at least the words of Jesus and his first disciples have to be the point of reference for what is considered Christianity or not. But I don't think that's the standard that gets applied these days. Without that point of reference, Christianity is a moving target, and in the end, what was originally anti-Christian might well be thought Christian. And I'm not talking about who goes to heaven or not; I'm talking about what is Christianity or not, which may or may not answer that question in light of those early words.

E.g., I have come to believe that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism and anti-communism, since an objective understanding of the point of reference must include that Jesus and his disciples were anti-capitalist and, in modern terms, communist. It should not be alright for someone to decide otherwise because they like capitalism and hate communism, just because they want to consider themselves Christian. The Greek word(s) for "confess," as used in that reference, implied agreement, though the modern English word does not.

I.e., I would ask anyone who wants to call themselves Christian: do you agree with Jesus? If one doesn't agree with him, it would follow that one doesn't believe him, and if one doesn't believe him, one can't believe "in" him. To simply state "I believe in Jesus," when the whole of one's system of beliefs is antithetical to Jesus' words and teachings, is to be self-deceived at least.

Posted by: johnOneOne | November 18, 2007 1:30 AM

"Right. Let's take the term "born again," which is often used as an appeal to "salvation." "

I never took it as that , I always took it as a short expression of the conversion to the Christian Faith .

How would you explain that conversion if your were going to make a short statement about it ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 18, 2007 4:40 AM

"Jesus is still a homo-sapien, just a new-style one. The miracle of the incarnation is that Jesus is both God and man. However, I do see your point that Jesus was not a man in the sense that he was born into sin, and therefore under God's wrath."

Actually Jesus chose to bear God's wrath so even though he was born perfect ie w/o sin he was still under the same curse of death that affects all mankind. I don't pretend to fully understand all of it but to say that he was removed from God's wrath ignores the passion...

"My contention is that the solution is greater emphasis on scripture, not less."

I would contend we need more of the Holy Spirit not less. I think the emphasis on scripture is really short sighted and masks a form of legalism that pretends to be righteousness.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 18, 2007 6:51 AM

Bradley,
Pardon me. I'd like to comment to this last response if I may.

J. Christ taught one of his most important lessons in demonstrating the money changers were without morality AND free and honest trading practices. Show me where J. Christ ever exercised extreme scorn such as he did in this instance, even when he could have done something similar to non-believers or a "committed atheists?"

Belief OR the lack of belief is one thing, some would even say both are the right of individual free-will. Who are we to judge other than God? Actively depriving others is quite another.

The root between Capitalism and Christianity is not just compatible, but seemlessly interwoven. So is Communism. However, just as it was in the days of J.Christ, both are carried out in a profoundly flawed way. To think either will ever rectify the sinful elements within their own ideologies is naive, quite frankly. These social systems cannot properly facilitate the predatory nature of humanity. Now why would you or anyone else defend one over the other?

In the example of the money changers, the lesson J. Christ sent to us was that we should have Democracy NOW, and not tolerate something just because it's how everyone goes along to get along. Jesus Christ would condemn both social systems. Let's stop and think what if he actually didn't say then what most of us say now, such as, "This market system is all we have" or "Sometimes markets are unequal, but it's the best system of order we have"?

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2007 1:04 PM

I could point it out in conservative churches. I could point it out in liberal churches. If we sat down and discussed theology, we could probably point it out in each other. This is precisely why I believe that the Bible is so important. What makes my opinion any better than yours? Nothing. It is important that we contend for the truth and that both sides submit to God's word, not OUR word which we attribute to God.

If that be the case we wouldn't have denominations -- but, because of different emphases, we do. My side, the Calvinist view, places much emphasis on the Old Testament. The Lutherans emphasize Paul's letters, Methodists focus on holiness while the Mennonites lean toward the Sermon on the Mount. All these are Biblical, obviously, but it depends on what you think is most important.

Christ was furious with them, not because of unjust trade practices, but because they had turned His Father's house into a place of business.

More accurately, because of where the merchants were set up, they were keeping Gentiles from worshipping God.

They are punished under the law.

During the 1980s and '90s they tried to change laws so that such practices were no longer illegal; that was part of the "Contract With America" in 1994.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 18, 2007 2:01 PM

Also, Jesus could not have been sinless--any time he ate food, he was taking food from someone poor. The system into which he was born meant that in order for him to live, others had to suffer or die--for instance, the first born who died on his behalf so he could escape into Egypt. His clothes meant than someone had to work for unjust wages. His safety meant someone had to die in battle. The roads he walked on were the work of slaves. He had to cause his mother pain in order to be born. Original sin means we are all born into a world where sin is inevitable. Even Jesus could not be free from sinning in a sinful system.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 18, 2007 2:33 PM

"kevin, you might see this passage either as supporting your argument, or not. But I think you would do better to argue with respect to it."

I stated that Jesus came in the flesh, and that he lived as a human. The charge of gnosticism is ridiculous, and I am not going to take it seriously.

"No one is so thoroughly compelled to be Christian that they should change what Christianity is, in order for the label to apply."

I completely agree with this statement.

"I have come to believe that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism and anti-communism, since an objective understanding of the point of reference must include that Jesus and his disciples were anti-capitalist and, in modern terms, communist."

How so? Do you have any scriptural basis for this?

"J. Christ taught one of his most important lessons in demonstrating the money changers were without morality AND free and honest trading practices"

For the life of me, I don't understand this interpretation. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus is aghast that a house of prayer has been turned into a den of robbers. In John, Jesus is depicted as consumed with zeal for God's house.

There are those who think that John describes an entirely different occurrence. I find that interpretation difficult to swallow, but we are still left with Jesus bemoaning the fact that the money changers had taken over the temple. He didn't go to the marketplace and overturn tables, for example.

I agree that all systems of government are inherently flawed because we are sinful. I also agree that capitalism is not divinely inspired, and that there is no need to embrace an ineffective economic system because Christians played some role in crafting it.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 18, 2007 3:55 PM

As a recovering Biblian, all I can say is "Amen!" Thanks for the great observations.

Posted by: John Vest | November 18, 2007 4:10 PM

Actually, Paul says, "All have sinned." That includes Jesus. It includes Jesus' sinful participation in a sinful system. His parents could have saved hundreds of lives by presenting Jesus to Herod--but they chose to let the innocent die so they could escape. At that time, they chose to be illegal immigrants in Egypt. Jesus wore clothes without any concern for the working conditions of those who made them. Jesus drank wine without any concern about the legal or illegal status of those who picked the grapes. It would be interesting to see if he always checked the papers of those who helped out in his father's carpentry shop. Jesus paid taxes which helped to support unjust wars. He could not escape the original sin of being born in a sinful world.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 18, 2007 5:13 PM

"If everything going on at that moment wasn't being carried out in such a greedy and fanatical way, Jesus would not have been so emotionally demonstrative."

Jesus certainly knew that his actions at this moment would become part of the recorded account of his life, yes? So why would he base his actions on the greed or fanaticism present? Or, if he did so, why wouldn't he say so?

Greed and fanaticism may well have been present. Or the dealers may have simply forgotten the importance of the temple to the extent that they turned it into a flea market. If we read the scripture, the latter was sufficient to inflame Jesus' passions.

"As in most ALL of his examples, he would have taught this particular lesson in the type of serene and collected way he knew so well."

Serene and collected? Oh what evidence do you suggest that Jesus was serene and collected?

You then try to draw a modern parallel to Wall Street. I assume you are referring to the frenzied nature of the market floor. While this has been represented as a symbol of corporate greed, this is a more a function of the auction format.

To the extent that certain companies have manipulated the markets to cheat investors, God is certainly not pleased, but I see nothing about the nature of trading stock that Jesus would find inherently offensive.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 18, 2007 6:27 PM

"You then try to draw a modern parallel to Wall Street. I assume you are referring to the frenzied nature of the market floor. While this has been represented as a symbol of corporate greed, this is a more a function of the auction format."

"To the extent that certain companies have manipulated the markets to cheat investors, God is certainly not pleased, but I see nothing about the nature of trading stock that Jesus would find inherently offensive."

I have to respond to this first. You seem to be jumping to your own conclusions here, Kevin. I had no intention of making any parallels. I was only adding more clarificatioin as to what kind of fervor that scene may have been consumed with at that time.

And it's just my guess that Jesus was serene and collected. I really can't imagine someone like that being much different, esp. in the chess match that his oppressors put him in for such an extended period of time beginning at the age of about 30.
Matt

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2007 7:29 PM

I never took it as that, I always took it as a short expression of the conversion to the Christian Faith.

Not quite. The best short synopsis of the Gospel is later in verse 16.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 18, 2007 9:12 PM

"Kevin s. the heresy you've exposed in yourself is not gnosticism but rather 'Apollinarianism.'"

It isn't that either. If anything, it is Eutychianism, but it isn't that either. Moreso, I was simply saying that Christ does not represent a human possibility, and it denies his deity to say so.

"In reading the posts I suspect that few bothered to actually read the CT article. Moreland was not advocating any liberalising of scripture."

I agree. I'm not sure how or why Ryan drew the conclusions he did here.

"I had no intention of making any parallels"

You compared the money changers to people who work on Wall Street, albeit parenthetically. I'm glad you were not drawing a parallel.

I whole heartedly agree that God despises greed. There are plenty of greedy people on Wall St., and they are accountable to their sin. But there are also people on Wall St. who earn an honest living, and it is unfair to single them out as greedy.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 18, 2007 10:20 PM

Kevin,
Given your earlier statement that Jesus was 'incapable' of sin I'd suggest that leans more to 'Apollinarianism' (where his nature is solely divine) than to 'Eutychianism' (where he has a single blended nature, neither fully human nor fully divine).
Even though your views don't align perfectly within either they're still in denial of the hypostatic union which is a core trinitarian belief. So they'd still constitute a form of heresy (we can call it Kevinism).
We liberals (theologically speaking) will still embrace you in the faith, but the ETS won't allow you membership.
Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 18, 2007 10:45 PM

"You compared the money changers to people who work on Wall Street, albeit parenthetically. I'm glad you were not drawing a parallel."

No, again, I did not make a comparison there. I gave you my honest answer as to the specific purpose of why I used that in parenthesis. I've had one exchange with you here. It seems as if you're purposely trying to goad me on the issue of wealth/power?!?

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2007 11:49 PM

Someone who is born into sinful social structures must inevitably sin. That is what Scripture really means by original sin, and why all have sinned, including Jesus. Our life is caught up in the suffering of others, from the moment we are born. No one has really responded to my earlier posts, but in each case I mentioned, Jesus sins by participating in a sinful system.

Also, Jesus' divinity is a matter of degree, not of kind. Rahner and Tillich, and process theologians like Cobb and Pittinger, would say that Jesus is the point in history where humanity and divinity are brought together perfectly. Jesus' human life fully incarnates the presence of God in a way which ours only partially do, but our lives have the potential to do. Our baptism promises that we will one day be God-bearers like Jesus--doesn't it?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 19, 2007 1:34 AM

Wall Street holds the lives and futures of many millions of people in its hands; therefore, it has greater responsibility.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin

The greed of the poor is also despicable before God . The example of the most generous was the poor women who gave from her poverty .Not the amount she gave .

Wall Street reponsibility appears to be less to this country from what I understand Rick ,.

I would advocate tax laws that reward behavior that helps the peoplo of this country , instead of relying on the good will of Wall Street .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 19, 2007 4:16 AM

The greed of the poor is also despicable before God.

Agreed, but that doesn't let the rich off the hook.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 19, 2007 8:08 AM

I'm late to this thread but I want to weigh in on a few things.
Squeaky,
Though I seldom agree with you, I respect your thoughtfulness. Look a little deeper into the story of Galileo. You will find much more to that story. It will not change your view of science vrs. the church but you will discover that Galileo was a man of faith who got caught in the middle of church and national politics (Spain). It really is not about the church (Catholic in this case) being anti-science.

Matt,
The gospel story is very clear. Jesus cast out the money changers and merchants from the Gentile court of the Temple because they turned a place of prayer for "all nations" into a market place. This courtyard was where Gentiles and the disabled (blind, lame, ect.) came to pray. The Jewish leaders did not value these people, so they allowed the courtyard to not only be used for commerce but as a shortcut through town.

Matthew records what happens after the cleansing. The blind and the lame come to Him and He heals them. A beautiful worship service breaks out.

Kevin S.,
I'm still unclear on your position on Christ humanity in relation to His divinity