“I'm saying yes, it was a central, pivotal theme. That, indeed, if you miss that central Jesusian way of looking at "salvation" in terms of wealth, poverty, oppression and the marginalized, you are likely to miss the point of the Jesus story. As we go through this quickly, keep in mind to look for... Who the message is for (the poor and marginalized, over and over)?”
In the absence of anything else, it’s reasonable to believe that Dan’s view of the gospel is that “salvation” is primarily and centrally related to issues of “wealth, poverty, and oppression”. So it seems that the shorthand references that have been used aren’t all that far off.
When I have time and a computer, I’ll move all the comments from the other thread. It’ll eliminate the distractions from the other thread. Until, do so I’ll be leaving comments in moderation so as to preserve the context.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Just to give one example, I never said the poverty makes people more holy. I never said it. I never suggested it. I never hinted at it.
Put shortly, you two - and countless conservatives like you - continually misread words given to you from a contemporary in your own language. Why do you think you're able to rightly understand the Bible's words when you can't understand mine?
Especially when you're reading into my words something that simply isn't there. Do you see why it's hard to take your concerns about my supposed misinterpretations of the Bible seriously when you're not understanding my words?
And it's not an isolated incident. It happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I have no idea what you're trying to prove. Sounds like you're not understanding my words.
Regarding the multiple silly claims that what I'm talking about are simply my personal opinions. You DO realize that many people would say that Jesus taught Simplicity, that the church early on lived lives of Simplicity by Design. You recognize that's not just something I cooked up out of thin air? ...but rather, it is something that many people who read the Bible honestly reach as a conclusion... Or are you unaware of that?
Really, fellas, read more anabaptist writing. We've been around for centuries now, you think you might know a little bit more about it. Or just study church history. Or study Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc etc. Just read more beyond your little circles.
Back to what Marshal thinks I said about the poor being holy. It would also depend upon what Marshal means by holy. He is, no doubt, defining holy as Ultra righteous and good. That's not the definition of holy as it is found in the Bible. Just FY
Dan,
Your problems here’s are as follows.
1. When referring to your I’ll defined view of poverty and the gospel, occasionally we might use shorthand to refer to your hunches.
2. Just because “many people” saying son doesn’t automatically confer rightness on that. But, your selective appeals to numbers are as predictable as they are hypocritical.
3. Ive read plenty of anabaptist writing. I’ve nevet found anything so compelling that I’d offer it as the be all and end all of theology. Of course your assumption that anabaptists are somehow automatically right is one more claim you can’t prove.
No, I suspect he’s referring to holy as “set apart” like it’s defined in the Bible
Are We Happy Yet?
True happiness comes from contentment.
Psalm 90:14-17; 103; Proverbs 15:16-17; 16:8; Ecclesiastes 4:6; Isaiah 55:1-2, 6; Matthew 6:25-34; Romans 8:5-6; Philippians 4:10-13; 1 Timothy 6:6-11; Hebrews 13:5-6; James 5:1-8
As Christians, we know better: true happiness will never consist of things. Contentment will never be found through satisfying the desires of this life. But a culture that begs us to buy, buy, buy in an effort to make ourselves "better" does not leave us better off in any real sense—or ultimately satisfied. This study will discuss what's wrong with this picture.
Session Two
Too Much Stuff
Give it away before it controls you.
Proverbs 11:4, 28; 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 15:7-15
In a classic from Today's Christian Woman, Mayo Mathers confesses that greed is her ongoing temptation, and that it takes on some unexpected forms. This temptation strikes everyone—from the stay-at-home mom to the wealthy Christian CEOs we learn about in Christianity Today's article. What does it look like to handle our resources in a definitively Christian way?
Session Three
A Truly Simple Life
Though the world tells us we must be, do, and have more, God calls us to be content.
Psalm 46:10; 63:2-5; Mark 1:35; Luke 12:13-21, 22-34; 1 Timothy 6:6-10
Magazines, commercials, books, and Pinterest boards have tons of advice for leading a simple life. Magazine headlines scream at us: "Tips for Doing It All!" "10 Organizing Secrets!" "3 Must-Have Cleaners!" "5 Easy Weeknight Meals!" They promise the secrets to a simple, organized, contented life. But it doesn't take long to realize that all their tips and tricks just leave us with more to do, buy, and long for. It does anything but make us content. But maybe the simple life doesn't have anything to do with stuff. Perhaps God's Word holds the only secret to the simple life that we need.
Session Four
Simple Living
Are we consumed by consumption?
Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Ecclesiastes 5:10-6:9; Matthew 6:25-33; Acts 2:44-47; 2 Corinthians 8:1-9; Hebrews 12:1; Revelation 3:17-20
Those of us who have many possessions or few can all be possessed by what we have—or don't have. While Christians should live simply, the focus should not be on getting rid of what we have, but rather upon cultivating the disposition of "a life of joyful unconcern for possessions" (Richard J. Foster). Such a disposition will lead to actions and behaviors of simple living.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/a/life-of-simplicity.html
Christianity Today. Those radical hippie liberal swine!
Crazy idea. How about you explain in concise, simple terms your view of the poor and the gospel. Like maybe boil it down to one paragraph. No equivocation, no ambiguity, just a straightforward explanation.
Well done. You’ve apparently decided to once again argue against a position no one has taken.
The problem isn’t you being able to google an article you think will prooftext your way out of trouble. It’s interesting how many of “your” prooftexts aren’t the words of Jesus, and how many are from Paul, who aren’t too fond of or from the OT, which isn’t reliable.
I do like the cynical way you try to use texts you don’t really give any credence or authority to, in an attempt to bolster your personal definition of “simple living”.
I’d also point out that you allow quite a bit of misstatement of our positions at your blog. If you’re going to get on your high horse and be a stickler, then have the guts to be consistent.
We can eliminate any of your references from Deuteronomy, and Ecclesiastes, because those were laws specific to the Hebrews.
We can eliminate Revelation because that apocalyptic.
We can eliminate Isiah because he claimed to speak for God.
We can eliminate Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Hebrews, and Timothy, because Paul.
We can eliminate Psalms and Proverbs because they’re just poetry and pithy sayings.
That knocks out most of your prooftexts using your own standards.
"Jesus taught Simplicity, that the church early on lived lives of Simplicity by Design."
If you actually read Acts and Paul's letters, you'd see that there were plenty of people in the early church that had financial means. Further, we see other instances where Christians were persecuted I'm guessing that there material wealth was probably limited due to persecution rather than choice.
Finally, if you are advocating that Christians have the choice to live simply then I have no problem with people making that choice. It's when you move it to the status of something that Jesus taught (commanded) that is normative for all people, in all places, at all times, then you have a different level of evidence to support that claim.
The simple fact is that by nature of you accessing the internet on a smartphone or WiFi on your computer while living in a house with electricity, HVAC, indoor plumbing, access to transportation with something other than animal power, and get your food from anyplace beyond your personal farm, your life doesn't begin to qualify as simple.
Much like that climate hucksters that complain about me driving to work while they hop on their private jet to fly to the marina where they berth their yacht, or who drop 15 million on a beach house that they insist will be gone in 10 years, your failure to live up to what you claim Jesus taught undercuts your credibility.
I don't say that the OT is not reliable. I don't say that I'm not fond of Paul. I don't say that I don't give credence to the OT or Pauline epistles or Revelation. I certainly don't say to eliminate the great and powerful words from Psalms or Proverbs, or poems or pithy sayings, for that matter.
I may disagree with YOUR hunches and interpretations of some of those texts, but that's not the same as disagreeing with or disliking or not finding these texts reliable. Disagreeing with your interpretations is not the same as discounting those texts.
You'd know that if you read and understood my words. So, again, given how thoroughly you all consistently fail to understand my words, why do you think your hunches about the Bible are going to be reliable?
It's a reasonable question that remains, as always, unanswered.
Dan,
I've provided multiple answers to your questions over the years. However, in this case, you're the one making multiple claims allegedly based on scripture. If you're going to make claims, you've got to be prepared to support them.
I note that by your silence, you do eliminate the prooftexts in Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, etc as not applicable because they only apply to the Hebrews.
Are you now suggesting that you hold all of the prooftexts you've offered as equally true and authoritative?
Craig... "How about you explain in concise, simple terms your view of the poor and the gospel."
I've done it. You've failed to understand it or, probably, even see that I've done it.
The Gospel, Jesus' Gospel is, according to Jesus, "Good news for the poor," the marginalized... and preaching it is the reason he came, according to Jesus. Jesus never defined his Gospel, for better or worse, but I think clearly that it is a gospel of grace, good news that says that...
1. God loves us SO MUCH;
2. God invites us all to sit at his table, beginning with the poor and marginalized;
3. God invites us to repent and join this grace community, this presence of God;
4. God invites those of us who are wealthy to the freedom of letting go of that wealth and power and privilege and joining with the poor and marginalized at his welcome table;
5. God invites us, poor, imperfect Us - all of us! - to be part of God's Realm, to be part of the grace-community defined by love, kindness, justice (especially for, and starting with, the poor and marginalized), truth-telling, compassion and decency;
...you know, good news. THESE teachings are what one finds in Jesus' teachings. We who follow Jesus would be wise to start with Jesus teachings about the good news and salvation and grace and understand the rest of the Bible through Jesus' teachings, not the other way around.
My view of the poor is that they lack resources. Not sure what you need beyond that.
If "Jesus' Gospel is, according to Jesus, "Good news for the poor," the marginalized.", then how can you assert that "God invites us all to sit at his table..."?
Are you suggesting that every single poor and marginalized person gets a seat, then the rest of the world comes second?
Are you agreeing that Jesus is God?
Your problem is that you are trying desperately to posit an inclusive gospel, while excluding people who don't meet your criteria for "poor".
Look, I get that you have a lot of personal pride invested in this construct, but if all you have is your personal interpretations of cherry picked verses, you'll just need to do better if you want to be convincing. It would also help if you could actually quantify your terms and explain the dividing lines between the classes.
The reality is that you have three options.
God saves everyone no matter what.
God saves those who He chooses to save.
God saves the poor first then, somehow classifies everyone else after that.
If as you assert God truly saves "us all", then why would He bother to differentiate based on arbitrary categories?
Are you suggesting that those who don't accept God's invitation to "let go of their wealth" are somehow prevented from sitting at "God's table"?
"I never said the poverty makes people more holy."
No, but you did quite clearly say that poverty gives the poor a priority or a higher status at the "table of God". If you're going to make these claims, then prove them.
"Most first century Jews were looking for a Messiah who would reveal “the Lord’s favor” toward them but also bring vengeance on their enemies—thus reinforcing common social distinctions. In fact, the vengeance they expected God to bring on their enemies was a central aspect of the favor they expected the Lord to show to them. Their good news was centered on the bad news they anticipated for their enemies. For them, therefore, the punch line of the passage was “the day of vengeance for our God.” Yet, Jesus stopped with “the Lord’s favor.”
Now, Jesus obviously believed in a future day of vengeance when God would judge the entire earth. But his refusal to apply this clause to himself reveals that he didn’t view himself or the movement he came to establish as the occasion for this divine vengeance to take place. In this epoch, Jesus is revealing, God’s favor is toward everyone—even the enemies of those who consider themselves righteous. In this epoch, God’s reign is marked by acceptance, not rejection.
Within the Kingdom, everything and everyone is to be considered forgiven. In the reign of God in this epoch, all indebtedness is to be cancelled; all social judgments such as those against imprisoned people are to be reversed; inequalities between “haves” and “have-nots” are to be abolished; and all distinctions between upper and lower classes, between the holy and the unholy and between insiders and outsiders done away with. Where God reigns, God’s favor, not vengeance, reigns—period."
Let's see if Dan agrees with this Anabaptist, of if he'll pick and choose what he agrees with.
"Did Jesus Believe in Satan?
Jesus’ teaching, his exorcisms, his healings and other miracles, as well as his work on the cross, all remain somewhat incoherent and unrelated to one another until we interpret them as acts of war. As in apocalyptic thought of the time of Jesus, the assumption that undergirds Jesus’ entire ministry is that Satan has illegitimately seized the world and thus now exercises a controlling influence over it. Three times the Jesus of John’s Gospel refers to Satan as the “the prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). He here uses the word archon, which was customarily used to denote “the highest official in a city or a region in the Greco-Roman world.” Hence Jesus is saying that, concerning ruling powers over the cosmos, this evil ruler is the highest.
Thus when Satan claimed that he could give all the “authority” and “glory” of “all the kingdoms of the world” to whomever he wanted – for they all belonged to him – Jesus did not dispute him (Luke 4:4–6). Jesus assumes that the entire world is “under the power of the evil one””(1 John 5:19) and that Satan is the “the God of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4) and “the ruler of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2).
Jesus sees this evil tyrant as mediating and expanding his authority over the world through multitudes of demons that form a vast army under him. Indeed, Jesus intensifies this conviction somewhat in comparison to common views of the day. When Jesus is accused of casting demons out of people by the power of Beelzebub (another name for Satan), he responds by telling his hostile audience, “if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand” (Mark 3:24). His response builds upon their shared assumption that the demonic kingdom is unified under one “prince,” who is Satan. His point is that this kingdom of evil, like any kingdom, cannot be working at cross-purposes with itself.
Indeed, Jesus adds that one cannot make significant headway in taking back the “property” of his “kingdom” unless one first “ties up the strong man” who oversees the whole operation (Mark 3:27). This, Luke adds, can only be done when “one stronger then he attacks him and overpowers him” and “takes away his armor in which he trusted” and then “divides his plunder” (Luke 11:22). This is what Jesus came to do. His whole ministry was about overpowering the “fully armed” strong man who guarded “his property,” namely, God’s people and ultimately the entire earth.
Jesus’ success in casting out demons reveals that his whole ministry was about “tying up the strong man.” The whole episode clearly illustrates Jesus’ assumption that Satan and demons form a unified kingdom. They are, a “tight-knit lethal the organization” that has a singular focus under a single general, Satan.
Because of this assumption Jesus can refer to the “devil and his angels,” implying that fallen angels belong to Satan (Matthew 25:41). For the same reason Jesus sees demonic activity as being, by extension, the activity of Satan himself, and he therefore judges that everything done against demons is also done against Satan himself.
For example, when his 70 disciples return to him after a successful ministry of driving out demons, Jesus proclaims that he saw “Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning” (Luke 10:17–18). The “strong man” and his household clearly stand or fall together. They together form a single, relatively organized army, unified in its singular purpose of hindering God’s work and bringing evil and misery to his people. The head of this army and thus the ultimate principle of all evil, is Satan."
"The earliest disciples didn’t believe in Jesus because their scripture (Old Testament) proved to them that he was the Son of God. They were rather convinced by Jesus’ claims, his unique life of love, his distinctive authority, his unprecedented miracles, his self-sacrificial death, and especially his resurrection. Once they believed in Jesus, they looked for him and found him in their scripture. But they never would have been convinced that Jesus was Lord had they started with scripture alone.
Unfortunately, most evangelicals today are taught to do the opposite. They base their faith in Jesus’ Lordship (as well as everything else) on their belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This is “unfortunate” because this way of structuring our faith leverages everything on the perfection of this book, forcing the Bible to carry more weight than it was ever meant to carry. Every single problem people find with scripture now threatens to undermine their faith.
As I flesh out in my book, I eventually came to the conclusion that the things about Jesus that convinced the earliest disciples that he was Lord continue to be compelling enough to convince open-minded people today that Jesus is Lord, and they do not presuppose the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Once I was persuaded on the basis of historical, philosophical and personal arguments that Jesus was Lord, I was motivated to also embrace the Bible as God’s Word, for (among other things) this was clearly Jesus’ own view and it’s very hard to confess Jesus to be one’s Lord while correcting his theology, especially on such a fundamental matter. But notice, my reasons for believing in Scripture are now based entirely on my faith in Jesus, which is why my faith need not be threatened any longer by any historical inaccuracies or contradictions or scientific inaccuracies I may find in it.
I’m convinced that if young people today would structure their faith this way, we’d see far fewer loosing their faith."
"The Church as Christ’s Kingdom
Christ is not only the Savior of sinners, but also their Lord and thus the norm for every aspect of life. As a result, the Anabaptists define the true church through four criteria derived from Christ’s life.[17] The first is holy living. Christ has established a church that has no “blemish, wrinkle, or any such thing, but [is] pure and holy, as He, himself, is holy.”[18] The Anabaptists explicitly reject the traditional move in the church’s history to spiritualize Christ’s kingdom by incorporating all that are sacramentally graced or have faith without regard to whether they live righteously. Faith must be evidenced by fruit: Jesus’ disciples must “live unblamably in His holy commandments.”[19]
Second, the believer’s life must be one of self-sacrificial love or servanthood. Jesus’ disciples must put themselves last and serve the other (Matt. 20:25-27; Phil. 2:3-5). As a result, the ways of the world—pride, selfishness, retaliation, and even coercion—had absolutely no place among the Anabaptists. Attempting to evade all forms of “self-seeking,” they even prohibited Christians from “eating and drinking the sweat of the poor (that is, making one’s own people and fellow-creatures work so that one can grow fat).”[20] Nor could possessions be used solely for oneself, for the disciple of Christ “was not the lord but only the servant of His goods.” The Anabaptists’ acts of generosity and love for fellow believers as well as the stranger were renowned, a heritage that continues to this day.[21]
Third, the way of the cross is not only Christ’s calling, but his disciples’ calling as well: “Those who do not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciples: (Luke 14:27, NIV:ILE). Bearing the cross refers to Jesus’ nonretaliatory suffering resulting from his social nonconformity.[22] Through the way of the cross Jesus conquered Satan (Col. 2:15). In his servanthood (Phil. 2:3-11), Jesus denied the sinful powers their claim to absolute allegiance by trusting entirely in God (1 Peter 2:23). The disciple of Jesus shares in this same destiny (2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Peter 2:21; 4:1, 12-16). In the times of insult, persecution, or death, Anabaptists regarded the “holy cross of Christ” as their “highest shelter and shield,” as “we have surrendered with holy patience (not obliged or forced patience) to overcome all our enemies in the victory of Christ.”[23] So by bearing the cross, the disciple trusts in Christ’s victory over the powers of the age.
Witness:
One who simply believes or proclaims a message.
One who embodies the message in the face of hostility.
Finally, Christ’s Great Commission was every disciple’s charge. Anabaptists traveled throughout Europe to preach, live, and suffer for Christ’s sake. Even more crucial, the Anabaptists understood a witness not as one who simply believes or proclaims a message, but as one who embodies this message in the face of hostility from the world, even at the price of martyrdom. Indeed, the Greek term for witness (martys) is the origin for the English “martyr” and means bearing testimony at the expense of oneself. Similarly, they embodied Jesus’ life and teaching, offering an alternative kingdom in this world."
http://www.ephrataministries.org/remnant-2013-05-Anabaptists-the-church-living-in-antithesis-to-the-world.a5w
"All three of Satan's tests tempt Jesus to betray his identity and misuse his power.
The first temptation is to make the gratification of one's own physical appetites the priority of one's life. Jesus counters the Devil's temptation by quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, then spends his ministry feeding people's bodies and spirits."
https://www.patheos.com/progressive-christian/devils-hindsight-alyce-mckenzie-02-11-2013
"But before he embarks, he’s led by the Spirit to the desert for a time of preparation and fasting. And it’s here that he is tempted by the devil. These aren’t just any old temptations that result from human weakness. The devil is specifically tempting Jesus to use power for his own benefit.
Jesus has just been declared the Son of God at his baptism, and now the devil in three different ways says, If you’re the Son of God, start acting like it! Start using your power for good. Use that power to turn a stone into bread so you won’t go hungry. Use that power to rule over the kingdoms of the world so you can establish world peace. Use that power to order angels to protect you, so you can avoid suffering.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with bread or good government or safety. But behind these temptations is a catch. By using his power in these ways—even for good ends—Jesus would be shortcutting his mission to destroy the power of evil. He would be colluding with evil in order to bring about good.
The devil makes this explicit with the second temptation. “I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them because they are mine to give to anyone I please,” the devil says. But then he adds the catch: “I will give it all to you if you will worship me” (v. 6).
Jesus could have taken the reins of political power in order to bring about good. But by doing so, he would have become ensnared by the power of the devil rather than destroying it. Jesus resists this temptation, as with the others."
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anabaptistrevisions/2019/03/tempted-by-the-devil-a-lent-sermon-luke-41-13
Dan,
As has happened once before, when I take you up on your challenge to search for the wisdom of Anabaptists on issues you hold dear, I find that it's quite possible that you don't represent Anabaptists as a whole. Or, perhaps you misrepresent them. Or perhaps you only read and pay attention to Anabaptists who support your preconceived notions. I don't know or care which of these is the most accurate. What I do know is that when I do as you suggest, I almost always don't find what you think I'll find.
I find that strange and interesting.
You read, but fail to understand.
Of course, anyone who knows anabaptists, knows that they are a broad spectrum of believers. I wasn't suggesting you find very conservative anabaptists, which exist, to validate your views. My point was read someone who might disagree with your opinions.
You read, but fail to to understand.
And each time you talk about my preconceived Notions, you demonstrate that you don't understand.
As I've pointed out to you endlessly, my preconceived notions were conservative. It was reading the Bible that led me away from those preconceived notions.
And then from there, I found others, like many in the anabaptist world, who agreed and supported my conclusions. But I did not leave those conservative beliefs because I was a liberal and I wanted to support my preconceived liberal beliefs. I left because I read the Bible and found conservative ideas on these points wanting.
My point is that I'm not searching out "conservative" Anabaptists, In fact Boyd could hardly be called a conservative in any sense of the theological word. My point is that when I randomly search Anabaptists on subjects you say I should, i don't find any that agree with you.
I guess you're trying to suggest that it's impossible to exchange one set of preconceived notions for another set. That your current views are all backed up by hard, objective, facts, and that your socio-political views don't in any way shape or form influence how you read scripture.
But thanks for acknowledging the you found people who agreed with and supported your beliefs. I believe that was my earlier point, maybe you should broaden your horizons and test your rough draft against modern scholars who don't agree with you. Seems like Jesus encouraged that sort of "Iron sharpens Iron" thing. Or Paul who commended the Bereans for testing everything. It's just possible that moving beyond those who "agreed and supported your conclusions" might lead to better, stronger, more well reasoned and supported conclusions.
That's why I hang out with people like Boyd and McClaren when the opportunity presents itself. Why I actually do look up what anabaptists say instead of simply trusting you. It's a good and healthy practice.
Post a Comment