Colossians

Just the other day, my notorious colleague James Bryan Smith, asked me a question about Colossians 2, and started me thinking. So I thought I would ramble about my synaptic patterns for a moment or two.

My comments have to do with the way in which we separate Scripture from itself in order to serve our own agendas, rather than recognizing Scripture as "canon" and allow it to speak for itself. Then we take the Scripture and say "here is what it means" because that is what the words say.

So, Col 2:8 says "Watch out lest you become a captive" and proceeds to list several possibilities for enslavement. The KJV starts 2:9 with "For in him dwelleth all the fulness . . .", a famous trinitarian statement.

The issue is that it is so easy to take the trinitarian and Christological statement in 2:9-14 and discuss what it has to say about Jesus in the Godhead, etc. However, then we have separated it from Scripture. 2:9 serves as a "because" statement to explain the 2:8 statement. "Watch out . . . because . . ." The entire rhetorical purpose of 2:9-14 is to help the audience understand why they shouldn't become captives. It describes who Christ is, who they are, and what God has done for them, including canceling the certificate of debt that would lead one into slavery!

My random thoughts lead me to the conclusion: Don't forget who you are and how you got there, or else you are likely to end up back where you started!!! In Christ we are NEW. So if we are NEW and dead to the old way, why go back to it??

Arizona Shooting

First and Foremost, the Arizona shooting was a terrible tragedy. The young man accused (and captured with a smoking gun) was wrong. His behavior and actions cannot be excused by any rational person.

Secondly and more importantly, the response of the nation to this tragedy is tragic. At the timeline of school shootings , there is a list of shootings around the world since 1996 reports 219 deaths in school situations during the past 14 years. Why does this shooting get such a report?????

Finally, and more to the point, the solutions proposed have not yet reached my ear and been deemed plausible. Each time a situation arises, the call goes out for more regulation, more laws, more this, more that. Some external device is called to blame: a video game, a movie, a talk show host, a blog. None of these can be solved, nor are empirical. There is something at the heart of the matter that escapes the public media. Humans are sinful. Without a change of values or attitudes through a faith in Jesus, no "external" pressures can resolve the key issue and prevent future occurrences. Until an individual becomes a new creation in Jesus, the result of their actions will always be death.

Enough sorrow for the moment. Let's talk about plausible solutions.

Our Identity

Who are we as a nation? The recent 2010 election will redefine us in part, but doesn't necessarily solve the question. Does the action of Washington DC define us through legislative actions, or are we more precisely defined by the events recorded in newspapers and reporting services across this vast land? The question of identity is frequently responded to by a series of questions that we ponder from time to time.

Romans 8 is a segment of the Bible that focuses on identity. How should believers in Jesus as Messiah view themselves? It is sufficient to say that Paul does not consider the race card an appropriate means of identity! He processes through the chapter with statement after statement: not in the flesh but in the spirit, not slaves but children, not merely children but heirs. These descriptions of identity ultimately lead to several questions at the end of the chapter and perhaps further clarification in chapters 9-11. But what is interesting about these questions is how Paul wants us to regard them.

Paul introduces the questions with a question, "what shall we say?" and proceeds to ask specific questions and give somewhat loosely related answers. However, the thrill of understanding Romans is when one recognizes that this is not the first time that Paul has asked this question. On several occasions Paul has asked the "what shall we say?" question and followed it up with one or more questions. In 3.3-4, and 3.5-6 he begins his rhetoric. This is followed in 6 and 7 with a series of 4 repetitions, 6.1, 6.15, 7.7 and 7.13. Thus on six prior occasions the auditor has heard Paul ask a question and known his reply, me genoito.

Now Paul asks, one more time, "what shall we say?" and the anticipated answer is me genoito! But Paul himself does not provide the elicited response. He proceeds to ask several questions about our identity. The kind of questions we ponder with no real answers, culminating with "who could separate us from the love of Christ?"

Understanding our identity leads us to live in certain ways and discuss issues with a certain background. On the basis of Romans, "who can separate us from the love of Christ?" when we are in the spirit, children of God and jointheirs with Christ?

the Irresistable revolution (or some such title)

My son has been reading Shayne Claiborne and bouncing ideas off of me and his own facebook cronies. What I find interesting is that the challenge of Claiborne and many of his ilk are not directed toward the biblical text, but toward how individuals have appropriated the biblical text in their lives and proclaim their practice as the "christian" way.

For the historically minded (that includes recent and Old Testament history), one is not surprised at the critique Claiborne provides. The fault is not his. Throughout ancient and recent history voices (should I call them prophetic?) have uttered the same challenge to their generation's appropriation of the biblical text (even before it was 'biblical').

But what Claiborne (at least from my son's account of him to me) and others fail to deal with is that the issue is not the biblical text, or even the salvation stance of those they criticize. The critical issue is an exploration of the interpretation of the biblical text. Until we begin to examine how we (I, you, others who do so) interpret the text and have a transparent conversation, there will be little change.

Unfortunately, the ones criticized by Claiborne don't pause to think about the how or why of interpretation. They are not challenged by the leaders of their congregations to think, but rather to act; as if acting correctly makes one correct.

Start considering that we are part of a long history of humanity who has attempted to interpret the message of God and that we are far more prone to get it wrong than to get it right. Then we might assume we have something to learn rather than act as if we have it all together.