Suprised by Hope://chapter 5&6

How do we see the future? Are we looking forward to an escape to finally get to our true “spiritual” home? Waiting for an existence that is finally free from this earth and these bodies? Or, do we look forward to the progress that is happening? We continue to advance in science, medicine, government and these movements are out steps towards what we as a race and a planet are destined to become.

Both of these lines of thinking are myths.

“The early Christians did not believe in progress. They did not think the world was getting better and better under it’s own steam- or even under the steady influence of God. They knew God had to do something fresh to put it to rights.
But neither did they believe that the world was getting worse and worse and theat their task was to escape it all together. They were not dualists.
…They believed that God was going to do for the whole cosmos what he had done for Jesus at Easter” (pg93)

Wright spends chapter 5 sketching out the two “myth” views of the future and chapter 6 walking through Paul and Revelation laying out what the Christian hope really is and how it answers both of the “myths”.

Three themes that keep popping up in Paul’s letters and Revelation are the goodness of creation, the nature of evil, and the plan of redemption. Several images in the New Testament fill out these themes, and paint for us the picture of Christian Hope:

• The victorious battle (1 Cor.)
• Citizens of Heaven colonizing Earth
• God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15, Philippians)
• New Birth (Romans 8 )
• The marriage of Heaven and Earth (Revelation 21-22)

What I am proposing is that the New Testament image of the future hope of the whole cosmos, grounded in the resurrection of Jesus, gives us as coherent a picture as we need or could have of the future that is promised to the whole world, a future in which, under the sovereign and wise rule of the creator God, decay and death will be done away with and a new creation born, to which the present one will stand as a mother to child… What creation needs is neither abandonment nor evolution but rather redemption and renewal; and this is both promised and guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.” (pg 107)

I have heard this doctrine my whole life in various places, both in books and from some pulpits. Jesus is coming to set everything right. But, in daily conversation, Christian Bible and book studies, funerals, songs, and in the general assumption of pop-theology, I hear talk that suggests we are really refugees, waiting for rescue and judgment to fall on this evil place we have been hostages in.

Thoughts like this are not hope. It’s something else entirely.

If our hope truly is redemption then living as people who are bing redeemed and are part of the redeeming work of God (rather than hiding out as refugees) is what we are freed to do.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Suprised By Hope, Books, Christian, Hope, NT Wright, flock

suptised by hope:// chapter 4

“This then is the more of less universal witness of the early Christians: that they are who they are, they do what they do, they tell the stories they tell not because of a new religious experience or insight but because of something that happened; something that happened to the crucified Jesus; something that they at once interpreted as meaning that he was after all the Messiah, that God’s new age had broken into the present time, and that they were charged with a new commission; something that made them reaffirm the Jewish belief in resurrection, not swap it for a pagan alternative, but introduce several distinctive but consistent modification within it.” ( pg 58 )

Chapter four deals with the question “what can we say about the resurrection of Jesus it’s self?” Write deals with arguments and dismissals of the resurrection, first dealing with the arguments against the gospel narratives as valid sources for the resurrection story then addressing what a historian can or cannot say about the resurrection event.

The last half of this chapter has allot of good stuff in it, especially Wright’s dive into the epistomoligies of faith, hope, and love. (I pray that I may have an epistemology of love)

The conclusions is this: “…the totalitarianism of the last century (speaking of the Enlightenment) were simply among the varied manifestations of a larger totalitarianism of thought and culture against which postmodernity has now, and rightly in my view, rebelled. Who, after all, was it who didn’t want the dead to be raised?… It was, and is, those in power, the social and intellectual tyrants and bullies; the Ceasers who would be threatened by a Lord of the world who had defeated the tyrant’s last weapon, death it’s self; the Herods who would be horrified at the postmortem validation of the true King of the Jews. <i>And this is the point where believing in the resurrection of Jesus suddenly ceases to be a matter of inquiring about an odd event in the first century and becomes a matter of rediscovering hope in the twenty-first century.</i> Hope is what you get when you suddenly realize that a different worldview is possible, a worldview in which the rich, the powerful, and the unscrupulous do not have the last word, The same worldview shift that is demanded by the resurrection of Jesus is the shift that will enable us to transform the world.”

These first four chapters form part one of the book. Wright has brought the resurrection to the front of the stage, swept away some wrong thinking about it, shown us that you can believe in resurrection, and that the resurrection of Jesus matters and changes the way we view everything. From here, he jumps into the second part of the book, dealing with the question “…what then is the ultimate Christian hope for the whole world and for ourselves?” ( pg28 )

surprised by hope://chapter 3

“…What sort of an event was it? Just how empty was the tomb on Easter morning?…
What should we believe about Jesus’ resurrection, and why?…
The issue is not whether the Bible is true or not. The issue is not whether miracles occur or not. The issue is not whether we believe something called the supernatural or not. The issue is not whether Jesus is alive today and we can get to know him for ourselves. If we treat the question of Easter as a test case in any of those discussions, we are missing the point.”(pg 33-34)

The issue at hand is the resurrection. We need to talk about that. So, Wright tries to clear out the stage, so we can think clearly about what resurrection actually means.
According to Wright, the first century world had mo misconceptions about what resurrection meant. It only referred a person who was once dead coming to full, bodily life again. The world generally laughed at this idea; resurrection didn’t happen. Some Jews believed in resurrection, but only at the last day when God resurrected all the righteous persons.

The early Church sided with the Jewish belief of resurrection (ie that it did happen, someone once dead could come back to life body, soul, and spirit), but because of the resurrection of Jesus, there sere several modifications made to the Jewish thought.

“The first of these modifications is that within early Christianity there is virtually no spectrum of belief about life beyond death” (pg41)

They believed in resurrection, not life beyond the grave. Or, to put it another way, they believed that life in Jesus conquered death, not lived on after death.

“In second-Temple Judaism, resurrection is important, but not that important… But in early Christianity resurrection moved from the circumference to the center” (pg42)

Resurrection was not some fringe benefit for believing God. Rather, it was the hope God offered in Christ, and that the church was holding out to the world.

“… throughout early Christian resurrection belief is the view that the new body, when it is given, will posses a transformed physicality, but not transformed in the one way the central biblical text might have suggested.” (pg44)

The Christian language when speaking of the resurrected bodies lacks the OT language of “shining like stars” (Dan 12). Instead of some luminous being or a glorious form, the church believed that after we are raised from the dead, we will have physical bodies in a physical world. Granted, they are transformed physical bodies, but they are still flesh and blood.

“The fourth surprising mutation evidenced by early Christian resurrection belief is that the resurrection, as an event, has split into two” (pg44)

Jewish thought held to one resurrection at the last day. Suddenly, Jesus rises in the middle of history, not as an end to history. He raises as an individual, no mass resurrection here. And His resurrection “anticipates and guaranties the final resurrection of God’s people at the end of history”.

“Because the early Christians believed that resurrection had begun with Jesus and would be completed in the great final resurrection on the last day, they believed that God had called them to work with with him, in the power of the spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness.” (pg 46)

“The sixth remarkable mutation within the Jewish belief is the quite different metaphorical use of resurrection.” (pg46)

Judaism had been using the metaphor of resurrection to talk about the restoration of Israel. In Christianity, that metaphor is replaced with “resurrection referring metaphorically to baptism (a dying and rising with Christ), and resurrection referring to the new life of strenuous ethical obedience, enabled by the Holy Spirit, to which the believer is committed.” (pg47)

“Nobody in Judaism had expected the messiah to die, and therefore naturally nobody had imagined the messiah rising from the dead.” (pg47)

Instead of Messiah being identified by his victory over the pagan nations, the Christians believed Jesus was Messiah because of his resurrection.

Understanding what resurrection means is important if we are going to rightly think about our hope as Christians. It is not about some sort of spiritual life after death, it is about life conquering death. It is not about a victorious life, it is about the victory of God in the resurrection and us getting in on it, working with God to see the kingdom com and His will be done.

Suprised by Hope://chapter 2

NT Wright asks the question “How do you see death?”

There has been, in fact, an oscillation between two polls… Some envision death as a horrid enemy, stalking it’s pray. This is often combined with the firm proclamation that, though an enemy, death will finally be defeated…
The other pole of belief is represented by St. Francis’s hymn, “All creatures of our God and King”, with its remarkable invocation of “And thou, most dear and kindly death, waiting to hush our latest breath.” Many hymns, prayers, and sermons have tired to soften the blow by presenting death as a friend coming to take us to a better place… (pg16)

What we say about death and resurrection gives shape and color to everything else. If we are not careful, we will offer merely a “hope” that is no longer a surprise, no longer able to transform lives and communities in the present, no longer generated by the resurrection of Jesus himself and looking forward to the promised new heavens and new earth. (pg 25)

So, how do you see death? What is it? And the other half of the question is what then is resurrection?

Suprised By Hope://chapter one

“First, what is the ultimate Christian hope? Second, what hope is there for change, rescue, transformation, new possibilities within the world at the present?” (pg5)

Monday night at the Lompic, Chris and I started talking about the problem of suffering… which is really the problem of evil… which is really the problem of sin.

My issue is not that suffering exists. I can believe that, I can accept that… but I can’t do anything about it. That is my struggle.

If God is good, and he promises salvation to all who will believe, than why don’t I who believe have any power against evil in my own life, let alone the world at large? If I can’t bring good about in my life, how can I bring good into the world? Why has God not given us the power, strength, the knowledge, the ________ to overcome evil with good?

This struggle is why I believe NT Wright is correct in seeing the two questions of hope for my self and hope for the world as intertwined, rather than the two separate issues to be talked about.

If I don’t know my hope as a Christian, or if I have the wrong hope and call it the Christian hope, I can’t hope rightly for or rightly give hope to the world around me.

Chris and I talked about allot of things, and I’m still processing the conversation. I have a feeling I’ll be doing that for a while. As I break into “Surprised by Hope”, I do have a few things from that conversation on my mind:

• -I can give shape to the Kingdom of God, but I can never totally embody the entirety of the Kingdom of God.
• -The resurrection is God’s answer to suffering, evil, sin
• -Since The resurrection is the solution, I don’t have to “do it all” (embody the entirety of the Kingdom of God). Rather, I can accept it as the solution in my life, place, and time… and truly, really, and actually stop trying to do enough to save my self, and let the resurrection be the answer.
• -God’s doesn’t give us meaningless gifts. We are given gifts (graces) that can bring about the shape of the kingdom in the world around us as we do good.
• -We should do good

New Book

So, I keep hearing about this book by some guy who is named after the New Testament (or was the New Testament named after him… I kid).

Suprised By Hope by N.T. Wright is suppose to be a great read, and since I just dropped a few bucks for it, I hope it is.

I’m really looking forward to reading this book, for a few reasons. The main reason today is a conversation that Chris (the ass. Pastor for Evergreen) had last night at the Lompic (mmm… beer). That conversation has shifted a few things in me. It’s a good shift, but it needs time and food to bare fruit in my thinking, heart, living, and faith. I hope Suprised By Hope will be some food for that.

Oh, and by the way:

Why would God give you a meaningless gift?

Pagitt

Up till now, all my inter action with Doug Pagett has been third party: interviews, articles, reviews and critiques of his writings, etc… Wednesday night, I got a chance to sit down with a few other Evergreeners, and hear him read from his up new book A Christianity Worth Believing.

The two chapters he read (one and two… in that order) sparked a lot of conversation about what Doug’s intentions and hopes for this book are. We also talked about and around ideas that his readings brought up.

The night was a very good, and I do look forward to carefully reading the entire book when it is released. Here though, I do want to talk out some of the thoughts and concerns that were raised for me last night.

The family metaphor

Pretty heavy handed throughout the first two chapters (and from what I understand, the rest of the book) is the metaphor of Christianity as a family, and people come in as adopted kids. In biological adoption, it is much more than just the assimilation of new bodies into a pre-existent family; what actually occurs is the creation of a new familial unit. In this belief/faith/spiritual adoption, Doug advocates that this is what should occur as well. The rules of what is and isn’t talked about must be broken, challenged, and left behind. Everything should be on the table and up for grabs (more on this in a moment) because we are not who we once were. We have a new make up, some new ingredient, new people that share our last name. In Doug’s mind, this should mean that we change with them as we all (old and new) look for a harmony and discover this new family.

I like this image… as far as it goes.

There is a lot of truth in this metaphor, and there is a very real sense in which the communion of saints through all time and space is growing, evolving, continually becoming. That movement is continued and powered by the influx of people into this family.

However, there is also an identity that we take on as we are adopted into this family, a last name we take so to speak. This identity is wrapped up in Jesus of Nazareth, and with out some sort of conformity to this identity, can you still rightfully be part of the family tree?

In other words, while it is true that we are all being changed and that the family of God is constantly changing and becoming to some degree, there is still a historical identity and story that we are becoming a part of. We cannot expect (or tell others) that this family can become any and everything imaginable while still being grafted to the tree.

Conservationists

Doug understands himself to be a contrarian, someone who naturally sees the “other side”, and is pulled, compelled, and feels a responsibility to say, “right by who’s standards?”

It is a difficult task to be the pusher, the one who can not just go with what they are told, but must see and study every side, and often come to conclusions that other’s are uncomfortable with. I know, because I find my self doing these same things.

Doug mentioned the idea that there are conservationists within the family of God. People who are trying to conserve some “old guard” way of “family life” (to dip back into that metaphor). The contrarian pushes up against these folks, and as I said, this is a good thing… to a point.

At some level though, the conservationist in best form is someone who is preserving what is good and true and the core of belief. To push to hard against some of the ideas and beliefs being preserved is like turning a state park into a ATV park: what was conserved because it was right and good ceases to be good.

I do agree with Doug: there should never be any sort of “no talk rule”. People need the freedom to think, doubt, wrestle, and flesh out what they see scripture saying and what they hear the community of God saying. I am whole heartedly behind the idea of putting all the cards on the table and conversing around them.

I just don’t believe that we can throw whatever we choose off the table or choose to rethink the three of clubs to the point that is ceases to be the three of clubs.

Now, to be far Doug did express his belief that the Spirit of God gives us the same sort of protection that was given to the first century Christians, meaning there is no where we can go or anything we can do or rethink to the point that it is broken and no longer Christian… at least in his mind. While I like the sentiment I hear behind this thought, I just don’t know if I can get behind it.

Conversion

In the second chapter, Doug shares his “conversion experience”. He believes that God was already known in His life before he knew about Jesus. This is something I’ve been thinking a lot about this past year, and I don’t know how to interact with this thought just yet. Plus, I want to read the book and hear Doug flesh it out a bit more.

The entire night was a very good time or reading and conversation. If you get the chance to hear Doug read his book, take it. Hearing the inflection and expression really gives some depth and clarity to some statements.

Bob Hyatt is going to be interacting with A Christianity Worth Believing over at his blog, and it would be worth your time to check it out. Also, check out His summery of his big day with big Doug.

I’m not a huge fan, but…

I would like to nominate ‘come together’ as soprably the greatest beatles song of all time.

Book Report

Just finished book 3: My Name is Asher Lev by Chaim Potok. Due to some watter issues, I’m not quite finished with Renewing the Center, but should be by this weekend. Also, I have started reading The Great Shark Hunt by Hunter S. Thompson.

Book two finished

Last night, i finished Philip Pullman’s “The Amber Spyglass”. The story was entertaining and well put together. I must say that i see it as more of a reaction against gnostic thought that has crept into Christian thinking that anti religion. More on this later. Now, starting “Renewing the Center”.

One Book Down!

Today I finished Philip Pullman’s The Subtle Knife (book 2 of the His Dark Materials series). So far, the story is entertaining. I can see his atheistic leanings, but for anyone to think that this book can undue someone’s faith in the Living God is silly. The “Magisteriam” (church) and “the Authority” (God) in this story is a straw man, stuffed with the worst of the corruption of absolute power. Granted, we as the body of Christ can be just a corrupt as the best of them, especially when we claim the absolute dictatorship of “true” and “not true”. however, the Spirit of God still plays in our midst and our hearts, and thank God for that saving grace.

More about  these thoughts and the whole series when I finish book three: The Amber Spyglass.

NaNoWriMo

Update 11/12/07: I’m trying. 2837 words so far. I’ve hit kind of a wall with my story. Don’t know if it will be done in this month or not, but at least I’ve started writing!

Reading

Since moving to Portland three-ish months ago, I have gotten back into the habit of reading. It’s been good to be amid pages of characters, paragraphs exploring ideas, and feeling accomplished at the end of the last page. It has been good to love reading again.

The past year or two have been full of books, but they were by in large books I felt I needed to read: books about the emerging church, about pop culture, Theology, philosophy, and anything else that would make sure people knew that I was a smart “hip” Christian.

Ok, so that might be a bit of a hyperbole, but you get the idea.

I’m just stoked to be looking for new books that I might enjoy simply because they are good books. Most of the reading I have done on these three months has been fiction (and reading a good story is just so much fun, something I have forgotten), but I can feel my brain once more yearning for all sorts of books on all sorts of topics, maybe even some theology tomes once again… maybe.

Reading is a discipline that I believe is healthy, wholesome, and important for my heart. This is a discipline I want to re-cultivate in my life, keep till I die, and pass on to as many minds as I can. 

 

Books from the past three months:

Fiction:

• “Interview with the Vampire”, Anne Rice
• “Tale of the Body Thief”, Anne Rice
• “Memnoch the Devil”, Anne Rice
• “Mariette in Ecstasy”, Ron Hansen
• “Hunters of Dune”, Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson
• “Lullaby”, Chuck Palahniuk
• “The Electric Michelangelo”, Sarah Hall
• “A wrinkle in Time” Madeleine L’Engle (reread)
• “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”, J.K. Rowling (reread)
• “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince”, J.K. Rowling (reread)
• “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”, J.K. Rowling
• “Hocus Pocus”, Kurt Vonnegut (finished)

Non-fiction

• “Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs” Chuck Klosterman
• “Story”, Steven James (finished)
• “On Writing”, Stephen King (finished)
• “Pornified”, Pamela Paul (currently reading)

On Deck

• “The Idiot”,  Fyodor Dostievsky
• “The Brothers Karamazov”, Fyodor Dostievsky
• “Touched with Fire”, Kay Redfield Jamison (to finish)

 

Maybe I should start doing reviews on some of these…