Creed Question - No, Not Apollo

Remiss.  I get it.  If I told you I've been meeting with people to actually write a book would you forgive me? 
------------------------------------------
Read the Apostles Creed (page 30 in McGrath) and the Nicene Creed (it can be found on many online sites). They represent rare times when the entire church got together (representatively) and agreed on such a statement of belief. Do you think it is appropriate to accept them as the yardstick by which Christianity is defined? Why or why not? What would you add or delete?

----------------------------------------------

The Apostles Creed is a good and sound summary of Christian doctrine and very similar in wording to the Nicene Creed.  They both share the quality of outlining the basic tenets of the Church.  The word creed stems from the Latin “credo” which means “I believe” and emulates the purpose of both statements:  to express the beliefs of the faith in a succinct and structured manner.  To that end, regardless of the creed which is used, both serve the same purpose of pronouncing belief in the faith of the Church.

However, when the creeds originated, there were not nearly the number of divisions and denominations as there are today so I’m not entirely certain we can (or should) say as a blanket statement that “the entire Church is in agreement.”  Is the “entire Church” the same in its entirety as it was then?  Not even close. Much like the Constitution has not changed in wording since it was originally penned yet many, many individuals no longer hold to what it decrees, I feel some may argue this correlation with regard to the Apostles Creed/Nicene Creed.  That aside, both creeds absolutely can and should be utilized as the yardstick by which Christianity…at its basic premise…can be measured.

At first blush, I have always been inclined to want to remove “the holy Catholic church”; however, upon further investigation and thought, my original inclination is what should actually be removed.  The “holy Catholic church” does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today.  The word catholic used here means “universal.”  The true “catholic” church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus for salvation, thus both defining and unifying Christians and further cementing the acceptance of the creed(s) as an appropriate definition.  The unified Church and body of believers is where all those who are stirred by the Holy Spirit and are faithful to God come together in sacred community.  The Church is ‘catholic’ because it is all-embracing; it is not “an enclave within a profane godless world, but rather the movement, initiated by God, to communicate perfect salvation to all nations.”[1]  It is ‘holy’ when it is imbued and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, while I would not delete anything from the creed(s), I do think it is worth considering what has been left out, and that is, Jesus’ ministry.  There is no mention of His work or teachings in the world and instead moves straight from birth to death.  I believe it is The Liberation Theologians who made kind of a big deal about this omission.  Their view is that it leaves out the most radical and prevailing components in the life of Jesus, which has extensive (mostly political) relevance for the poor and marginalized today, as well as how we grasp what discipleship entails.  Perhaps one sentence or reference to Christian praxis would be a welcome and compelling addition to both creeds.

You will buy the book, right?  (Yeah...I'll change names...no worries, you.  Or, (ew) you.  And...definitely not Y-O-U.)

---

[1] Urs von Balthasar, Hans. Credo: Meditations on the Apostles Creed. New York, Crossroads, 1990. p.84.

Why Not All Professors Are Made Alike

This class has me realizing that when I teach as an adjunct once in a while, those students are loving me.  Sure, I may have known they thought I was a pushover when during the first break someone starting vaping ("But it's Birthday Cake"..."Um, what?!?").  I need to crack the whip.  Step on a crack...break your momma's back...Wait, no.  Zip it, Devo.  I have another paper to write.

So Mr. not-at-all-like-the-last-professor actually responds to our posts with not only feedback but more questions.  My head hurts, my stomach is empty and my To-Do-List has zero checkmarks on it.

But check this - a response to his response.  And now I pray that this thing is ov-uh.

__________________________________

Thoughtful post, Beth. You bring up some important points. While Jesus gave us the power, and even responsibility, to bind and loose, and while each generation is responsible to do that anew I wonder how much latitude we are given. We look at the Crusaders and wonder how they we able to use the scripture to justify such bloodshed. And then there are other groups who interpret the same body of scripture to demand absolute pacifism. How much are we allowed to "appropriate" on our own? Do we merely weigh our own "billions of particulars"? How much weight should we give the "billions of particulars" of previous generations, or of others with completely different experiences and worldview from our own? How do you think we navigate all of that?

____________________________________

Prayerfully!  These are such great and stirring questions, age-old and yet, almost completely unsolvable.  Navigation through such potentially treacherous terrain sans direction inevitably leads us up even more slippery slopes as, viewing the landscape only through our own "billions of particulars"-made lenses, we fail to take both history and God's Word into account.  It is crucial and wise to utilize them in conjunction with our life experiences, as they are not mutually exclusive.  God’s Word trumps all, in my opinion, but much like David still respected Saul (and handled his death properly and respectfully), he absolutely knew Saul was trying to kill him and reacted accordingly.  The respect for his king still remained, but he also watched his own back simultaneously based on the history of one of his billions of particular events.

How much God allows us to appropriate on our own goes right to the heart of free will and Calvinism vs. Arminianism and is at times, a conundrum to be sure.  I find plausibility with this potential:  Our human minds think of free will and God’s plans as an either/or choice.  We live in a 100% reality…but maybe it’s a 200% reality and it’s actually a both/and choice.  Since God transcends our reality and lives outside space and time as we know it, perhaps there is a way in which appropriation is occurring at the same time as His plan.  To me, it’s always a “God can do anything” answer, including “mask” our choices to serve His greater good (plan) but allowing us to think (or otherwise, as in they are real, actual) those choices were still made by us.

Week 1, Assignment 2

Watch the video below.
In the video, Marty argues that the spiritual environment we grow up in gives us a "language and palate" for faith, but it has to be appropriated--it has to become our own. He goes on to argue that our faith is constantly reshaped by "billions of particulars" and "51/49s."  Do you believe that is true for generations as well? Does each generation take the faith handed down to it and "appropriate it"? Shape it? Make it their own? Give an example from your reading in The Christian World that supports your claim.

Video

 

 

As Marty says in the video, “appropriating” our faith is synonymous with “making it our own.”  Thus, absolutely it holds true that our faith is constantly reshaped by “billions of particulars,” i.e. our individual conglomeration of life experiences.  And so it is also true generationally.  Each generation takes faith which is not only handed down, but expected, discussed or even dreamt based upon its own unique worldview at the time.

 

I’m quite certain that my grandparents would have been completely out of sorts if they walked into any number of contemporary church settings today, with the casual attire, piercings, tattoos, and what!?  Even bass guitars.  For their generation was one of organs, three-piece suits and cufflinks, and always the same routine and setting.  While they worshipped the same God and gave thanks to His same Son, the manner in which they participated was vastly different – based upon their own appropriations of faith which stemmed from their own unique spiritual environment.

I could not concur more with what Marty replied when asked how he came into his faith: “gradually.”  A gradual realization of any concept is what has the most staying power, grabs the strongest foothold, and cements our rock-solid belief system, even in the midst of future storms which threaten to flood our minds with differing, new-age opinions.  I believe that is why Marty used the example of “the highs and lows of adolescence” and “death and remarriage” – against the backdrop of such character shaping life events is when the most faith appropriation occurs.

As Marty says, “The Western European church was not devoid of theology during the era of the Crusades and intra-European holy wars.”[1]  I can’t even imagine any more “theological” a time period in the scrim of war.  Many Catholics today would argue that this is still the greatest time of religion and theology in the history of its church.  Every individual was enmeshed in the situation of the time and each formed their own unique appropriation of faith from it.  It could not be escaped.  Yet, according to Marty, “while many theologians were concerned with the teaching of original sin or the sacraments, most important and revealing was the Western church’s revisiting of the themes about Jesus Christ that had first been formulated in Asia in the fourth and fifth centuries.”[2]  He goes on to say that they had to deal with “left-over” issues and they did.

So while the Crusaders had their own appropriations given the world around them in which they lived, they also were dealing with prior belief systems handed down to them from prior generations, most notably and unresolved point amongst the councils at Nicaea and Chalcedon of how Jesus could be both man and God.[3] 

It is no different for us today.  We have each appropriated our faith based on our gradual accumulation of “billions of particulars” while, at the same time, questioning certain key points which arise from others sharing the same time and space in this generation.  To that end, I would say that we are all purposeful, active, and timely participants partaking in the big picture at the hand of our sovereign artist.

---

[1] Marty, Martin.  The Christian World, A Global History. Page 97. New York:  Modern Library, 2009.

[2] Marty, Martin.  The Christian World, A Global History. Pages 97-98. New York:  Modern Library, 2009.

[3] Marty, Martin.  The Christian World, A Global History. Page 98. New York:  Modern Library, 2009.

Classtime!

Where did the Holidays go, anyone know?  Last week was rough, but this week has been proving itself to be brutal.  I think the difference is we were sort of all in the collective fog of wishing we were still lounging around in front of the fire drinking wine and wearing exactly what we had slept in all day while binge watching Netflix.  And last week, as we pretended to be super gung-ho about being back in adult-land we could at least still talk about it with one another.  But not this week.  This week is real production.  Send wine and Friday, please.

As you guys know, the Romans class ended before Christmas (um, yep - that professor did not have Parkinson's and thus inadvertently give me a minus after the solid A...happy for him x 2).  There was  a bit of a break in theological study, but not in praying  [Side note: never in praying - see 1 Thess.5:16-18] as one of our family members, one of our running buddies, and so freaking many others that we and you know were diagnosed with cancer.  Again. 

I just read yesterday in fact, that 25-year old former Butler Bball player, Andrew Smith, died of leukemia.  Enough already.  Cancer, we are not your fan.  But we do live in a very broken world, which is why it is imperative that we live for the One who is not of this world so someday this will all seem like a really, really long warm-up...an arduous and sometimes seemingly never-ending practice that kicks our collective ass.

Honestly, it took me a lot of years, a lot of hardships, and a lot of kicking and screaming before I finally went to Him and decided to be an active player.  Best decision ever.

And so, here it is - the second class has officially begun.  History of Christian Thought.  New professor, new classmates, excellent topic.  From what I can tell, there will be less writing and more...thinking.  The first assignment was clearly just breaking us in for what is yet to come.  I'll post the rest as they are due throughout the course. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summarize your thoughts on one of the theological perspectives you will be discussing in your History of Personal Theology Reflection paper (this should help you clarify your thinking for your paper). Tell us about the influences that helped that perspective become a part of your belief system.
Read your classmates posts and respond to at least two of them. What did you see that was similar to the way you came to your beliefs? What was different? How does their experience and response to it affect your thinking?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having been raised Catholic, I always had such a difficult time with the concept of sin and repentance.  I hail from a long-line of Italian (and Irish) Catholics, and the generational pride was evident at each and every holiday gathering.  So to question whether we were “being Catholic correctly” would have gotten me both excommunicated from the family and also devoid of any homemade pasta.  Therefore, I learned very quickly to bottle up all the self-imposed and Mass-confirmed guilt, which did me no favors when it came to understanding the exact level of undiminished forgiveness God offers. 

The Catholic Church indirectly taught erroneously that some sins were worse that others; thus, leading immature Christians to conclude that certain sins might not be forgiven.  I was further under this impression since the number of “prayer penalties” which were doled out varied from week to week, dependent upon (or so I thought) how bad the thing you did actually was – in comparison to your friends.  I clearly remember walking back to our catechism class whispering the inevitable “How many Our Father’s did you get?” question to my best friend, trying to discern if God was angrier at her or me.  I found my religious upbringing to be a very loving and very scary proposition all in one fell swoop.

Both my grandmothers were fantastic influences when it came to faith.  They had a deep-seated and unwavering belief that everything would always be alright, because God would see to it that was the case.  They each modeled prayer (always with Rosary Beads in hand); however, there was never any familial praying other than the obligatory pre-dinner blessing.  I never knew how to pray, let alone how to ask for forgiveness.  And I was certainly never taught that if we confessed our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive them and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

And so it went on, this vicious cycle of sinning (sometimes even on purpose as those teenage years beg for us to do) followed by a less than heartfelt “confession” in church every Sunday when the light above the booth turned green, signaling that the other sinner was done recounting their list of “oops’s” and had received their resultant prayer tally. 

I was always so fearful not only of what I had done in the last seven days, but that God would also give me extra punishment because He knew that I wasn’t exactly telling the truth in the confessional.  It was unfair!  Not only was I unable to fully cease sinning, but then I had to sin again by talking about it?  Was God testing me?  Was He trying to make me prove how much I believed, how much I loved Him?  The whole concept left me numb.  I was empty, left to flail around aimlessly like a bird with one wing. 

That is, until I actually decided to read Scripture.  How about THAT concept? 

While my heritage and church upbringing provided me an unbelievable sense of community, tradition and belonging, nothing has shone more light on the way in which God forgives us than His Word itself.  God tells us that we need not do anything to be saved.  Salvation is a gift from Him (Eph. 2:8) and He blesses us and forgives our sins (Romans 4:7-8).

James tell us that if we confess our sins to one another and pray for one another, we may be healed (James 5:16).  I give thanks that I have been healed from early misconceptions about God, and continue to thirst for an intimate knowledge of and relationship with Him.

Unity

(1)  “So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another”: Begin by briefly reflecting on how you understand Paul’s ethical exhortations to relate to his theological musings in Romans. How does the character of God, as revealed in the Christ Event, inform Paul’s instructions regarding how the community ought to behave and treat one another? What key images stand out to you as you survey Paul’s paraenesis? What are the ethical implications Paul draws for the community of believers who are “in Christ”? How does Paul’s understanding of faith inform his exhortation to practice? In short, How do you see Paul’s theology and ethics “fitting together”?

--------------------------------------------------------

1. It is still the same good news of the gospel message in Chapters 1-11 which offers the exact indispensable connection to Paul’s ethical exhortations found in the remaining three chapters of Romans.  While he certainly goes into specifics in 14:1-15:13, there is no shortage of underlying theme – believers are in Christ.  Paul has done a fantastic job of calling attention to the aboveboard essentialism which is intrinsic in God’s grace; now he continues to illustrate various ways in which His grace should be incorporated into the daily lives (i.e. actions) of those belonging in Christ.

While Paul’s whole point is unity, he initially separates the bunch into two groups according to their faith: those who are “weak” (in it) and those who are “strong.”  He does not admonish either group for being entirely right or wrong, but instead focuses on the attitude of “the strong” which he includes himself among (15:1) by indicating they have been treating the weak with ridicule and judgement.  I find this interesting in that Paul is essentially throwing himself under the proverbial bus to solidify his point of having both groups in mind.  Unity cannot occur by definition unless there is a consolidation, and Paul is coaxing each side here to make specific choices regarding purity (of food in 14:1, et al) which he knows/hopes will subsequently lead to specific purity of more significance, i.e. clean consciences in their own estimations in and effort “to foster unity and other-regard, with the example of Christ in mind (15:1-9).”[1]  While the specificity with which Paul’s examples (14:14, 17, 20) must have resonated, the subject in his exhortation remains the same throughout: the good news of the saving power of God’s love revealed in Christ.[2]

The Furnish article says it best in my opinion – the word ‘intersection’ cannot do justice to the organic relationship of theology and ethics seen in Romans; neither term is utilized at all within the epistle.  Perhaps trumping both words is what Paul’s own singular word says best: “gospel.”  We certainly see key images appear in Paul’s rhetoric/exhortation, but there is zero question that those images serve as more of a backdrop against the center stage of the Christ Event and the deliverance from sin and death into a new life reigned under grace which it brings.  In Paul’s first perspicuous appeal, believers are called to a realization that they are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (5:11), while two further appeals in 6:12-13 demand consideration for the inherently moral character of “this new life.”  Those who have died (to sin; to their “old ways”) have been freed to “belong to one another.”  The imagery Paul uses of baptism to portray the burial of a sin-dominated self that has been “crucified with” Christ shows a release of the power of sin in favor of a “newness of life” (6:4) just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.

Paul is neatly wrapping up his theological exhortations with a bow of ethical practice.  While he has initially segregated (strong v. weak, etc.) camps, the critical effort in so doing was not to isolate, but rather to insulate.  Paul was insulating the entire group of believers so they might finally and fully understand that it is not a matter of which group they belong, but that they must be a part of the group – those who belong to Christ who “died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living” (14:9).[3]

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(2) The ethical paradigm of Christ and Christian hospitality:

(A.i.) Discuss what you think to be the basic issues Paul is addressing in terms of exhortation to “the strong” and “the weak”, not yet identifying who you think might be “the weak” and “the strong”. Name the particular issues and in which verses they appear, and the particularities of Paul’s choice of words. (This first part is primarily about what issues are on the table, and why you think they might relate to what Paul has previously said in the epistle.) (A.ii.) And, then, discuss the particular warrants that Paul uses as the reasons for his exhortation (i.e., 15:1–3, 7–12).

(B) Now compare some different approaches of other commentators with Sampley regarding Paul’s rhetorical strategy in addressing the issues of “the strong” and “the weak”. (What difference does it make if one assumes that the referents of Paul’s division between “the weak” vs. “the strong” are “Jew” vs. “gentile”, versus if one assumes that Paul is deliberately obscure about identifying the referents? What is the significance of choosing to compare Rom 14:1 – 15:13 with either 1 Corinthians 8–10 or with 2 Corinthians 1–7? What kind of presupposition does each of the commentators have [e.g., what is at stake for these commentators and for Sampley]?)

------------------------------------------------------

2A.i.  My estimation of the basic issues which Paul is addressing in his “strong v. weak” exhortation include the following:  (micro) - food purity as it relates to practicality and long-standing customs; (macro) - addressing how an established community can maintain its unity (i.e. practicality & long-standing customs) in the face of differing opinions.  According to the Karris article, “maintenance of unity is rooted in a strong community which in faith and love and concern can tolerate differences of opinion in indifferent matters such as eating or not eating certain types of food” (page 172).  The article points out there is a clear predominance of words connoting “community”:  adelphos (14: 10, 13, 15 [cf. Rom. 13:8-10], 21; 15:2 [toplesion]); allelous (14:13, 19; 15:5, 7); oikodome (14:19; 15:2); “we are the Lord’s” (14:9); “with one voice” (15:6).  The purpose of multiple variants of “community,” I believe, is not that dissimilar to Paul’s altogether purpose of unification among an entire body.  Whether the “weak” and “strong” epitomizes a particular group or entire disparate communities is not the pressing issue.  The overarching ultra-important issue Paul is addressing here is the relationship between freedom and love, as it (according to Karris) “introduces Christ.” 

2A.ii. Once we, or they, or an inclusionary or exclusionary group “get to Christ”…all are unified as one body of Christ.  The foundation(s) which Paul uses as the reasons for his exhortations (15:1-3; 7-12) is then, in direct proportional effort to “get people to Christ,” i.e. Paul’s theological “spin” in his paraenesis is tactically done in order to spread the gospel.  He wisely realizes, as he has always done, that there is a two-fold approach to his central message.  The warrants Paul uses addressed and related to the possible present situations within the Roman community, but also within any Christian community.  When someone comes in from the outside to a community, a group, a self-contained entity rooted in its strength of tradition and acceptance, they must connect.  Paul connected to those whom he gave his exhortations on the basis of he knew what was going on in their collective group-world.  He was establishing “his cred,” so the group would not just quickly dismiss what he was beseeching under the heading of “he doesn’t know us, therefore he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!  Why should we listen?!?”

Beyond that, Paul is putting the encumbrance squarely on the shoulders of the purported “strong” to help the “weak” and to please them (15:1), therein stating that each of them should please his neighbor for his good (15:2), for the purpose of “upbuilding” (in the Greek).  Again, the reasons in these statements are (also) two-fold:  not only was there some literal sense of “strengthening” the actual households that served as the bases for the Christ-movement in Rome, but also a figurative sense of community “betterment.”  Esler points out that Paul’s use of “neighbor” deserves exposition.  Just prior, in Rom. 13:9, a quote of instruction from Leviticus 19:18 was made:  “You will love your neighbor as yourself,” and immediately thereafter in 13:10, “Love does no evil to a neighbor.”  I believe the usage we see Paul engaging in here in his exhortation is the markedly important issue of the freedom and love relationship…as it introduces Christ.  Everything for Paul was about relationships, but none more valuable than each individual's with Jesus.

2B.  Sampley’s approach and discussion made roughly 150% sense to me; in fact, I loved the entire article!  The idea of frank speech verses oblique or indirect speech by Paul on the basis of the established relationship(s) he had with his audience should not have been such a novel idea, but light bulbs were happening a la Christmas tree displays.  For Sampley, the significance of choosing to compare Rom. 14:1-15:13 with 2 Cor. 1-7 was to highlight that point exactly.  Paul wrote a “painful letter” (i.e. elicited their guilt) to the Corinthians, calling them to task.  His letter and the words within were direct and pulled no punches, for he had an established and solid relationship with those readers and was in a position to speak candidly.  However, that was absolutely not the case with people in Rome.  Paul had not been there.  He did not have the luxury or necessity of time in establishing any kind of personal connections or relationships.  Therefore, his usage of figured speech was ingenious and purposeful.  Figured speech requires the readers or hearers to draw their own conclusions, with the application to themselves of what has just been said their own sole responsibility.  The deliverer of the information (Paul) assumes no responsibility, because he has not yet earned the right (via relationship and trust) to take it.  Whereas direct speech – again, Paul's chosen methodology to the Corinthians and Galatians – comes across as argumentative and confrontational, figured speech (according to Sampley) is “allusive and evocative” (page 45).  Direct speech needs proofs (which the Romans would have scoffed about, believing full-well in their minds that Paul did not possess [their specific] proofs); figured speech invites the hearer to establish its accuracy by self-application. 

This is an absolutely beautiful approach by Paul, as he is nothing but elusive in any kind of identification of “the weak” or “the strong” and instead simply encourages the strong to help the weak.  Obviously, it’s a win-win for him, as everyone will narcissistically throw themselves into the “strong” camp, thereby rendering them in a position of “helping” their brothers and sisters in Christ.  Ah, unity.

Sampley contends that defining the strong and the weak is insignificant.  He even goes so far as to remind us that many of the interpretive models which are used to uncover particulars in Romans are probably the same models that are used to do the same in Corinthians and Galatians – and that it’s like putting a square peg in a round hole.  Paul did not speak to the Romans in the same manner as he did to those in other communities, because he couldn’t.  “By whatever means necessary” is the motto which comes to my mind as I continue to study and learn more about this. Paul was on a mission; he was a missionary!  And the only implication as far as he was concerned was what would happen to non-believers and those “groups” of people he failed to reach. 

Certainly, the implication of who was in the “weak” camp and who comprise the “strong” camp was of no consequence, for everyone is addressed in Romans 15:7 when Paul again refers to an example of Christ that is a development of the thought of 1 Cor. 11:1:  “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ.”   It does not say “The ‘weak’ be imitators of me” nor “The ‘strong’ be imitators of me.”  The example of Christ that the Romans are being implored to imitate as they welcome one another is found in the example contained in 1 Cor. 10:32-33:  “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.”  Karris states it so well:  “The stress of Rom. 15:7-13, therefore is on the servant nature of Christ (15:7), who makes the two one.  Christ is all things to all men, to Jews and Gentiles, so that he might save them all, so that they might give glory to God.”

Karl Barth states it even better on this passage:  “Jesus reveals and realizes God’s mercy upon earth, ‘in order to make the one nation and the many together into one.””  Paul, as an incredible servant himself, was also making the two (strong and weak) one – one solid body unified in Christ – despite themselves or their indifferences over insignificant matters. 

 

---

[1] Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page 151. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2015.

[2] Furnish, Victor Paul.  Living to God, Walking in Love: Theology and Ethics in Romans.  Page 193.  Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.

[3] Furnish, Victor Paul.  Living to God, Walking in Love: Theology and Ethics in Romans.  Page 200.  Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.

 

Finishing Up the Race on the Roman Road

I know.  I'm remiss in posting.  Lemme tell you why and you can pick out the lame excuses versus the REALLY lame excuses...

My house looks like Christmas.  I don't just do Christmas a little.  I DO CHRISTMAS.  So there's lights and trees and sparkles and stuff everywhere, including the occasional turkey or pumpkin which have not yet found their way back to the decoration room dungeon.  That room would stress out even the most non-ADD mind.  Shocking I open the door to it with anticipation and awe and wonder and excitement every time.  Oh, and also I started teaching again at Redemption House (check it out Here) and traveled like a fool over Thanksgiving and double Oh!...end of year in the sales world is cray x infinity. 

Lame over...Discussion Post 6 of 7 below.  (It's the whole kit and caboodle [or kitten kaboodle depending on your love of grammar/animals]...settle in with some festive coffee or hot chocolate first before pouring over this one).
----------------------------------------------------------
After reading Keck, pp. 289–311, Blackwell, et al, ch. 16 (pp. 136–42), Simmons, “Priest—Sacrifice—Life as Worship,” 85–99 (essay available on Canvas), please respond to the following questions:
(1) Spiritual Worship and the Body of Christ: (A) Discuss how Romans 12:1–2 is a transition from the argument in Romans 1–11 and what follows in the ethical exhortations of 12–15. How is the “spiritual worship” a culminating image that portrays the ‘embodiment’ of the powerful gospel message? How is the rest of the paraenesis in. 12:3–21 an outworking of this “be[ing] transformed by the renewal of your mind”? How do these acts of being a “living sacrifice” reverse the rebellious humanity portrayed in Romans 1–3? How does Paul use liturgical imagery to present his exhortation for the sanctification of the community?
(B) How does Paul in his paraenesis of ch. 12 here direct Christian believers to act towards ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ of the community? How does Paul appeal to (traditions of) the teaching of Jesus in order to exhort the believers to respond to difficult or challenging situations?
 
After reading Keck, pp. 311–34, Blackwell, et al, ch. 17 (pp. 143–50), and Neil Elliott, “Romans 13:1–7 In the Context of Roman Imperial Propaganda,” pp. 184–204 (essay available on Canvas), please respond to the following questions:
(2) Church & State / Empire: (A) Begin by discussing how you have heard Romans 13:1–7 read in your church tradition. What kinds of appeals have been made to this passage? What kinds of practices and politics have been supported or challenged by use of this passage? What other biblical passages does this passage usually get associated with in your tradition, and what is the message that comes form this association?
(B) Next, briefly discuss your understanding of what Paul is saying in Romans 13:1–7. Then, discuss how this understanding relates to (i) Romans 12:1–21, to (ii) Romans 13:8–14. (What is Paul’s basic message here? How does this relate to the kinds of exhortations regarding ‘spiritual sacrifice’, ‘genuine love’, and ‘not avenging oneself’? What importance is it that Paul is writing his letter to the capital of the Empire? How might this relate to the issue of Judean-gentile relationship?)
(C) Next, discuss your understanding of the proper relationship between this passage and civil (dis)obedience. How does Elliott challenge or strengthen your reading of this passage? What does the “liturgical” (12:1–21) and “eschatological” (13:8–14) framework do to strengthen or mitigate the ‘political’ implications of 13:1–7?
-----------------------------------------------------------

1A.  Paul writes about the radical transformation that has occurred [in believer’s lives] “in view of God’s mercy” (12:1).[1]  Paul implies this by starting out the passage with “therefore,” signaling that the exhortations are his response to God’s action of mercy – which the whole argument in Romans 1-11 has been about.  It’s as if the first 11 chapters were Paul’s long intro of “here’s how NOT to live,” and not Chapter 12 is now calling the readers to an approach towards life that is the absolute antithesis of that.  This “new way” of living is founded on a new way of thinking, a “renewing of your mind” (12:2).[2]  No longer are believers to act upon their emotional impetuousness, but rather they are to act deliberately (i.e. with emotional intelligence) according to this new way of thinking that encompasses an entirely different way of treating others.  The inward change is to invoke even greater outward action-based changes.

The “spiritual worship” is a culminating image portraying the ‘embodiment’ of the gospel message in a parallel way to that which is the ‘embodiment’ of the believing community.  The spiritual worship of the entire community is now to be a rational worship (12:1) which stems from renewed minds thus leading to proper discernment of God’s will (12:2).  The best part about this embodiment among the believing community found in these passages is the sense of absolute teamwork/camaraderie/oneness.  There is a unity.  And as such, all who are part of the collective body are to function independently with their own gifts, but are not to think too arrogantly or highly of themselves because of their God-given giftedness and instead think with self-control (12:3). 

This renewal results in an outworking outside oneself.  The puffed up mind of the Gentile believer was to be humbled by both the grace and the infinitely wise mind of God in chapter 11.  The Christian’s transformation (12:2) is the result of the renewing of the mind, while thinking is the primary activity in verse 3.  Chapter 12 in its entirety has to do with this new mindset of the Christian as a result of God’s grace.  The Christian doctrine which Paul taught in Chapters 1-11 addressed the mind, but now Paul is calling upon the Christian to exercise their minds so they can conclude that the worship of sacrificial service is the only proper response.  This reverses the incorrigible humanity which Chapters 1-3 portrayed by shifting from inner selfish behaviors to [new mindsets] of external selfless behaviors.  It is clear that the individual is no longer the focus but rather the greater good of the whole community, expressing corporately a right response to God’s grace and mercy.

According to Simmons, Paul utilized priestly and sacrificial imagery to precipitate his law-free gospel to the Gentiles.  The phrase “the sacrifice of the Gentiles” in 15:6 balances the accrued weight of Paul’s liturgical language which picked back up in 12:1-2 as he instructs the hearers of his message to “present themselves as living and holy sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God.”  Paul did this with ONE end goal in mind – in fact, his entire ministry was hinging on this one truth: “he served as a ministering priest of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest for the gospel of God, so that the sacrifice of the Gentiles might be well received, they being made holy by the Holy Spirit.”[3] 

Paul used the classic imagery of priest and sacrifice to argue for the full inclusion of Gentiles in the church community as well as to substantiate/legitimize his calling among them, for he was aware that if his sans-law gospel was to have success, the Gentiles could no longer live like “sinners of the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:15); they had to be holy, sanctified, and separated unto God.[4]

1B.  The challenge is given to those who are already Christians to present themselves as a ‘living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,’ which is the proper “worship” [of the messianic age].  By having the Spirit’s presence in their lives, the Spirit who is holy enables God’s people to live in a way that is pleasing to Him, i.e. in their treatment of others – both inside and outside the community [of believers].  An important dimension to this new pattern of life is explained in 12:2:  “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.”  We know it is the Spirit’s work to bring about renewal in Christians (cf. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:18; Tit. 3:5).  Renewal of the mind makes it possible for ‘insiders’ to go on discerning God’s will and preparing themselves for daily obedience, not only despite countless pressures from ‘outsiders’ to do otherwise, but also to act accordingly towards them (so that someday they can no longer be on the outside if they renew their minds and are transformed).

The exhortations that follow in Romans 12 (through 15) reveal the dimensions of a life consecrated to God, under the Holy Spirit’s direction.  This involves effective ministry to one another within the body of Christ (12:3-13) and maintaining love and forgiveness towards those outside the Christian community (12:14-21).

In Romans 12-14 there are, by my count, eight references which echo Jesus’ teachings that Paul is drawing on in an effort to incite the believers to respond appropriately in trying situations.  Most parallels between Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s teaching deal with ethics.  For example, Romans 12:14 teaches, “bless those who persecute you” (cf. Matt. 5:44), Romans 12:17 states, “do not repay anyone evil for evil” (cf. Matt. 5:39) and in Romans 12:21 it is written, “overcome evil with good” (cf. Matt. 5:39-42).  Beyond what is stated, I believe Paul appeals to the traditions of the teaching of Jesus simply in the way he conducts his ministry.  It is how Jesus operated; their styles are similar.  Jesus had an all-inclusive outreach to the fringe of society (i.e. prostitutes/tax collectors) which is seemingly extended in Paul’s Gentile mission.  Paul’s central theme(s) is closely related to the teachings of Jesus.  Paul’s Christology, how he views the Kingdom of God, the death of Jesus, the mission of the church, and his eschatology all have close compatibility with the Jesus of the Gospels.

 2a.  I have always been taught within my church tradition that Romans 13:1-7 was our guide for how to treat those individuals in positions of “authority,” with authority being synonymous with a hierarchal structure.  So from police officers, to teachers, to mayors, to governors, to the President of the United States - we are to submit, defer, and not question or speak ill of them, because in so doing, we are “sinning” against God since He put them in those positions.  The only time we were given the proverbial green light to politely question a person of authority is if they instructed us to do something in direct contrast to God’s teachings; yet oddly, that always seemed secondary to making sure we listened and respected earthly authority.  I never fully understood (or accepted) this teaching, probably because I always felt like there were a ton of “fine print” situations that would challenge the usage of this passage.  For example, what happens when people claim legitimate governmental authority but are not?  What happens when a Christian is living in a country where a military coup is going on and determination of which government is in power is next to impossible?  What about Hitler?  For that matter, what about Obama?  (Ok, ok, I know…politics and religion, but we’re already hitting .500 here…).  I continue to struggle with the “God put them there” summation that always preceded this entire teaching within my church upbringing.

Other biblical passages that usually were lumped in with Romans 13:1-7 were of course the obligatory “wives submit to your husbands” (Eph. 5:22-33) and those dealing with slaves submitting to their masters (Col. 3:22; 1 Peter 2:18).  I was usually already rolling my eyes when the priest began to go to these (in his mind) corollary passages, as it seemed as if the message that was being conveyed from the association is that God put husbands in charge of their wives (and even if they were saying something absurd, wives had to listen or else they would be “sinning”) which intimated almost an arranged marriage situation.  The way in which it was portrayed and associated slapped the notion of a loving, submissive spirit in the face every time in favor of condemning the non-authoritative person for sinning.

2b.  I understand Paul to be giving advice here, to a particular community of faith in a particular historical context.  My take on his concern is that it was primarily pastoral.  I think Paul was teaching and advising the Jewish Christians to submit to the governing authorities.  He was looking out for their best interests, as if they followed his instruction, perhaps it would keep them from withholding taxes or from becoming involved in any anti-Roman protests.

The thesis of Paul’s argument here is in verse 1a, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities.” He then supports that argument by appealing to various reasons why the Roman Christians are to submit to the authorities.  First, no authority exists except from God, and all authorities that exist have been instituted by God (13:1).  Second, rulers are not an intimidation towards good conduct but rather towards bad (13:3).  Third, the authority/ruler is God’s servant in three ways: for the good of the Romans, to initiate wrath on the wrongdoer, and by being busy with “this very thing,” - that is, collecting taxes (13:4,6).  Paul infuses his reasons with examples and consequences, i.e. 13:2 where he notes the results of resisting authority.  He also makes a noticeable shift from making statements of fact to a command, i.e. “pay to all what is due them” thus connecting submission to the authorities with a duty to pay taxes and offer revenue.

The reasons (facts) for submission to the governing authorities are fundamental to Paul’s command that the Roman Christians fulfill their civic obligations.  Paul is essentially arguing that because the authorities were instituted by God, and continue to serve both God and the Christian, the Roman believers must submit to their rule.  He is telling the Roman believers that the rulers of Rome are to be respected and obeyed for reasons of conscience and their possible wrath (13:5).

Paul argues for an attitude of love and nonresistance in the face of suffering in Chapter 12 (1-21), hence it is not inconceivable that he would discuss the Roman community’s relationship to the governing authorities later on in Chapter 13 (I call paying taxes “suffering”!)  Paul may have decided at this point in the letter (13:1) to address a problem the Romans were experiencing and if so, the relation becomes clearer.  I think it needs to be understood within the context: as a letter written to a group(s) of people who are committed to a new messiah and living in the capital of the Empire.

Romans 13:1-7 is part of Paul’s overall ethical advice that the hearers and readers encounter in chapters 12-15.  Paul is making it clear that he intends his previous theological arguments to call forth a response of gratitude and commitment which will reorient the life of the community.[5]  If gratitude, responsiveness, and commitment are Paul’s hope for the Roman believers, it gets a little dicey and potentially confusing as to how we are to understand the sudden shift in subject matter that occurs between 12:21 and 13:1 (and continues for the next six verses).  However, I don’t believe Paul was attempting to write out a manifesto for Church-State relations for the next two or three millennia; rather, I believe his concern to be pastoral and local.  He was (pastorally concerned and) advising against anti-Roman and Palestinian nationalist conceptions among the Jewish Christians in Rome.  They were to submit to the governing authority (the Roman Empire) because that authority was derived from God.  I can’t even imagine how well that must have gone over, given what we deal with concerning “submission to our government’s decisions” today…

Lastly, in 13:11-12, Paul’s end-time consciousness is apparent.  Perhaps part of his argument for acquiescence to the governing authorities was based on his consciousness of the end of the age nearness.  The hope that the world and the Empire itself was passing away and thus being rendered inoperative, might have given a Jewish Christian in Rome a sign of humanity’s ultimate liberation from all authorities, oppressive or otherwise.  The very rulers that had been instituted by God, including even the Empire itself, were to be brought under the final rule of Christ (13:12).  I use this argument frequently when I have to remind myself how to deal with difficult people or with topics that pretty much just don’t matter: by remembering that we all have to answer to the same God someday and when that day comes, none of “this” will matter (like it “matters” now, in the present day).

2c.  The Elliott article strengthened my longstanding position and understanding of this passage, at least insofar as the whole “God puts people in the ‘right’ positions” is concerned.  Elliott states that there is one significant obstacle with reading 13:1-7 as a consistent and coherent response to a particular Roman situation happening at that time – “the passage itself does not express an unequivocally positive attitude toward the ‘governing authorities.’”[6]  Elliott points out that certainly not everyone in authority could have followed God, and further, that the passage is almost self-contradictory.  “On the one hand, we read absurdly positive comments about the purpose and function of the authorities.  They are ‘instituted by God’ (13:1); they ‘approve or reward those who do good’ (13:3); they are ‘God’s ministers for good’ (13:4); and ‘God’s servants’ (13:6).”  And yet, while those assertions were traditional in Hellenistic Jewish propaganda, he goes on to say that, “what is missing in Romans 13:1-7 is the characteristic criticism of those foreign powers in the present evil age.”[7]  To be subordinate in Judaism inferred that there was almost always implicit and explicit judgments of those foreign governments – even if God was somehow using their evil for His good.

Blackwell hits the nail on the head when he says that, for Paul, there is more to life than politics.  That statement essentially sums up (for me) both the liturgical and eschatological frameworks and their respective relation to the political implications of 13:1-7.  The (few) verses on the state are rooted in Paul’s more expansive vision for Christian ethics in Chapters 12-15 which is to essentially, “do good” (12:21; 13:3-4) while focusing on their “continued debt to love one another (13:8)” – present company of the state, of rulers, of non-believers notwithstanding.

---

[1] Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page 139. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2015.

[2] Blackwell, Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page 139. Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2015.

 

[3] Simmons, William A.  Priest – Sacrifice – Life as Worship:  A Pauline Matrix for Understanding Romans.   Page 86.  Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan-Mar 2015.

[4] Simmons, William A.  Priest – Sacrifice – Life as Worship:  A Pauline Matrix for Understanding Romans.   Page 86.  Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan-Mar 2015.

[5] Culpepper, Alan R., “God’s Righteousness in the Life of His People: Romans 12-15,” Review and Expositor 73 (4, 1974), 451.

[6] Elliott, Neil.  “Romans 13:1-7: In Context of Imperial Propaganda.” Paul and Empire. Page 196. Harrisburg:  Trinity Press International, 1997.

[7] Elliott, Neil.  “Romans 13:1-7: In Context of Imperial Propaganda.” Paul and Empire. Page 196. Harrisburg:  Trinity Press International, 1997.