Theology for the Masses

In this post I want to move to a text that many contemporary exegetes and theologians have really disappointed me when they interpret Paul here, namely 2 Corinthians 5:21. In this post We’ll look at this text and how Isaiah 53:11 impacts the text and how we should understand Paul here in light of it.

Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Paul here is speaking of God’s new creation that has come into effect through the reconciling work of Jesus Christ. Paul speaks of being Christ’s ambassador, pleading with the world to be reconciled to God. He is the means by which God appeals to the fallen and sinful world to come back to God and participate in the new creation. In reconciling the world to himself, God does not count their sins against them because, employing a traditional formula, the innocent Christ has become sin for our sake so that in him we can become God’s righteousness.

Now let us note the parallel between Isaiah 53:11 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. In Isaiah 53:11, the innocent Servant was wounded and crushed for Israel’s iniquities and rebellious deeds. After the Servant suffered, he is resurrected the Righteous One and as a result the many are justified–restored to proper covenant relationship with I AM.

continue reading…

I’d like to direct you all to this article from the New York Times Magazine about Mark Driscoll and the “new Calvinism.” It’s really interesting, and definitely highlights some important issues surrounding both Driscoll and the (relatively) recent Calvinism resurgence.

I find this quote, from the final page of the article, especially interesting:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

I’m personally not a very big fan of Driscoll. I think what he’s done on the cultural front is important and interesting…but this article highlights the exact reasons why his hyper-authoritarian militaristic brand of Christianity (and the Calvinist roots behind it) scares me. Any thoughts, comments, reflections?

I have been re-hashing some of my lecture notes from my class on the Reformation last semester lately. Here are five things I was surprised to learn, in no particular order of importance.

1. Theology in the Catholic Church was incredibly diverse and tolerant before the Council of Trent… for in house disputes
2. Man is born in filth, lives in filth, and dies in filth.
3. Human behavior, for Luther, could not be improved
4. For Luther, the only thing worse than a Catholic was a literalist
5. The Catholic Church before and during the Reformation was full of preaching

Read on for explanations. continue reading…

Theopedia.com has a really good page on the New Perspective on Paul with links to some writings by N.T. Wright, the more mainstream proponent of the movement, and some refutations of it. Very informative and very interesting reading.

Curiously, do you think Christianity has misunderstood Paul or has the NPP misunderstood Paul?

It is easy to take religious ideas out of context. It happens all the time – Luther, Augustine, and the Apostles have all been victims. the post below tries to look at the use of religious propaganda by the Evangelicals before and after the Peasant’s War of 1525. It’s easy to dismiss propaganda as inaccurate smear campaigns. What I wanted to do in the below post is examine two Evangelical (Lutheran) woodcut propaganda pieces from before and after the Peasant’s War in 1525 and ferret out their intended and unintended meanings.

Concurrent Metaphors : The Unsound Argument

The woodcuts were tremendously effective pieces of propaganda. The Evangelicals were able to wrap their message in concurrent layers, first in visual metaphor, and secondly in expository prose. The visual metaphors allowed for a wide-spread influence. However, with this powerful medium, there was danger of the onlooker misreading the image. However, most of the metaphors would work towards the propagandist’s favor. To help rectify this, the accompanying text acted to both clarify and deepen the meanings in the image. As it was designed to be read aloud, the text would affect the listener much easier than if it was written in standard prose. Both the text and the image worked in tandem to first identify with the onlooker/listener and associate his grievances with the Catholic Church. Launching off of this, the woodcut would then present the Evangelical counter-message. This tactic proved to be wildly successful, perhaps too successful, as evidenced by the Peasants War of 1525 CE. Like modern day political cartoons, each woodcut played on what was happening at the time of its creation. For the modern reader, the Evangelists woodcuts provide an excellent opportunity for study of the German society through the course of the Reformation.