Jesus feeding 5000 = Socialism?

I know, I know, miraculous charity is different than socialism - but the feeding of the 5000 was a long overdue declaration of the goodness of the Year of Jubilee and a reprimand for its neglect - and if Jubilee wasn't a form of socialism - I don't know what is.








Now my brother had a great clarifying question regarding this.  He asked, 


"It would only be socialism if you also adopt a theocracy, right?"


The reason that this is a great question is that the commands surrounding the redistribution of land (wealth) and the freedom for slaves in the O.T. - the year of Jubilee - were directly connected to the fact that for Israel, the land did not belong to them to begin with.  


Leviticus 25:10
Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you - and you shall return every man unto his own clan, you shall return every man to his family.


Leviticus 25:23
The land must not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners, my tenant farmers.


So the issue is the idea of "ownership" or the ability for a human being to own something in creation.  There existed in Israel, a very sophisticated system of redistribution and reciprocity for every inhabitant  and it was all based on the allotments they received based upon their tribal affiliation.  One was allowed to sell their property to another and allow oneself to be enslaved for financial reasons, among others.  But in the back of everyone's mind and during any transaction there was an understanding that this would all be reversed at least once in their lifetime.  The problem began when the people of Israel discontinued this practice - a violation that the prophets of Israel denounced them for time and time again.  Along with the "spiritual" denouncements for their idolatry, there were social and economic denouncements that went hand-in-hand with the spiritual ones.  In fact, they weren't seen as different.


Now back to my brother's question - "It would only be socialism if you also adopt a theocracy, right?"


The answer to this is a resounding YES - but yes because they didn't separate government from spirituality and judicial regulations from worship of God.  The reason for that is that all people's at that time had some form of a theocracy.  That understanding of government was as much a contextual choice as it was a God-ordained choice.  No Ancient Near Eastern country or people group functioned outside of a theocratic reign.  All believed that their god(s) ran their country and was ruling over them.  For Israel to have a theocratic form of government was not unique.  


What was unique was the way in which Yahweh, compared to other gods, called them to treat each other with equality, to forgive debts and to free slaves based on a calendar and then to redistribute wealth and land.  Every fiftieth year - everything was reset!  That was the unprecedented aspect of Israel's God who provided them with instructions for a very sophisticated form of "socialism."  


So the question is what would change if God acted in a different context or time - the form of government or the "socialistic" actions taken?  


Either way, Israel was called and designed by God to be a microcosm of the eventual macro-cosmic or global reign of God.  What carries over for us today is the understanding that everything in the earth is the Lord's and that he is a God who cares much more for how we steward what we've been entrusted with rather than how well we own things.  If it's all his and continues to be his, what does that do to ownership when others are in need and it is in our power to give?  But our hearts don't like to give, at least consistently enough to meet the real needs of people all around us?  This broken dynamic requires some sort of regulative body who will help us to not exploit our opportunities for our own gain without considering the consequence it deals out to the "other."  


If we don't do this and lean on ownership, it ends up being an excuse for selfishness, rather than an aspect of how God has entrusted us to steward "his" stuff.  Left to ourselves, we will always take care of ourselves more often than others (with a few great exceptions) and anything we do to redistribute still wrests the power in our hands.  Socialism isn't just about redistribution of resources but also of power.   


So, to finish, it seems that in the O.T. and in the early church (Acts) - God was much more of a fan of a socialistic form of community governance than what we experience in America today.  So, is Jesus a socialist - probably not in the strict sense, but I think it would be safe to argue that he was definitely not a capitalist, in whatever sense we could conjure.  

Africa's biblical canon within the canon | The Christian Century

Africa's biblical canon within the canon | The Christian Century

The Books in the Bible that Luther questioned, didn't like and argued for their removal from the Canon end up being the most important to African Christians and theologians.  What this tells us about the Western tradition of Christianity, is that it may not be enough for the rest of the world.  Helpful, yes.  Necessary, sure. Complete and Primary - Not even close!

There are too many gifts that the world of Christian dialogue and indigenous theology have to offer us.  There are so many more insights waiting to be unearthed in Scripture once other nations and cultures around the globe get a strong handle on it.  Their time is coming and ours has quite possibly peaked, if not already begun its decline.  

Paul Heibert explained it best - Theology is like a blueprint and each tradition, era of history, ethnicity, global location and historical-cultural context has something to offer to illuminate the truths of Scripture.  We are not finished with that history, we have not heard the last word and there are too many other nationalities and cultures who need to sit at the table and speak their piece while we listen.  After doing so, we are to incorporate these gifts into the long tradition of God's revelation that began with Abraham and continues still today.  

I honestly just think it's great that African Christians "especially" esteem the books that Luther almost threw out.  What other gifts do they have for the rest of us to discover? I can't wait.

Why I like Al Mohler

At 7:00 p.m., Central Time, on October 27th, 2011, Al Mohler and Jim Wallis went head to head with this question - Is Social Justice part of the Mission of the Church?

 I have never been more endeared to Al Mohler than I was this night.

 Don't get me wrong - I completely disagree with his position in the argument and by default agree more with Jim Wallis, whom I shared living quarters with in grad school - albeit decades apart. What endeared me to Al last night was his posture. I have had a harder time appreciating him and his opinions in the past - as you can see in one of my discussions I posted almost a year ago to the day.

In this past discussion, Al is describing what a proper Christian, who happens to be part of the Neo-Reformed movement, would actually look like.  In the discussion video I posted, he basically sums up what a young Christian should look like and that there aren't any other options, at least good ones, than what he's laid out.  He of course thinks that being a young Reformed Christian is the best and eventual path that any good Christian would end up on.  I couldn't have disagreed more and was quite honestly very upset with him for saying this - but I was missing something.  Last night, during the debate, I saw it.

Al Mohler is honest, courageous and an engaging man who shares his opinions without pride.  Some might say - oh no - he's very prideful - but I don't know.  Opinionated - Yes, but prideful, I don't think so, at least not anymore.  Who am I to comment on his character you might ask?  Good question - I am someone who cares about how we as followers of Christ who have been changed by Him look to a world watching for us to mess up (which we are going to do regardless) and then clean up without any apologies.  Many are waiting to see when we will embrace pride rather than humility,  narrow-mindedness rather than vulnerability and fear rather than courage. Others are hoping to reverse this list and are waiting for humility, vulnerability and courage.  Al Mohler displayed all of these last night and gave us something to be proud of.  Is it still frustrating to deal with the implications of his position - Yes, but at least it was endearing to deal with implications of his posture.

What Al did last night in the debate with Jim was vulnerable, was honest and humble - he gave his opinion and argued his point without any hidden agenda, without anger, without elitism, etc.  He was honest with his fear and he truly engaged the topic, laying out his case clearly and dealing honestly with any rebuttals.  There is no doubt what Al Mohler thinks about justice and the mission of the church.  And for that we need to applaud him.  This morning, I got choked up thinking about it actually because there are few leaders who will be this honest and straightforward with their agenda and their convictions.  He is not one of them. And though I disagree with him, I was engaged his position and how he argued it throughout the debate, precisely because of his posture.  He did not dismiss, demean or set up straw men.  He just gave a great argument for what he's most convinced of.

What he gave to his listeners last night was more than a position, it was a posture of honesty, critical and real engagement and he wasn't bound to the script, yet not without discernment.  In a day when Powers with positions are building moats around their motives, Al Mohler dropped the drawbridge and invited us in to take a good look at what was behind his walls.

"I applaud you Al Mohler because I trust you and I thank you for really engaging the issue and the learning that the debate offered all of us.  You allowed us to understand exactly where you were coming from and actually laid out a provocative argument that was compelling.  At the end, I still disagree with you, but my plea and implore is that you don't stop engaging, dialoguing and restoring dignity to those whom you disagree with."

I will go on being frustrated with his positions and concerned with what he does with his influence but for his courage, for laying his cards on the table and for not giving up on the discussion, I want you to know that these are exactly the reasons why, I like Al Mohler.

CRISIS IN BURMA from Scott Denton on Vimeo.

95 theses for OWS

So we've all got 95 theses 


but no Wittenburg door.


like Christ lying at the table 


as we watch his feet hit the floor
.

We've all got 95 theses 


but no Wittenburg door.


like lying next to the table

while feet are washed by the poor.


We've all got 95 theses


but no Wittenburg door.


Not convinced we're the ones

to nail a notice, to settle a score.


We've all got 95 theses


but no Wittenburg door.

A New Kind of Submission

What if our submission is actually designed to be in spite of poor leadership. The concept of submission should have a healthy dose of reality - that the need to submit, like the need to be content, comes precisely because the curcumstances make it difficult to do so. 


Over the years of being under different leadership paradigms as well being a leader in different capacities, it has become clear that leaders are as broken and in need of grace (if not more) as anyone else. The brokenness a leader manifests comes through their leadership and how they treat and manage the people and responsibilities they've been entrusted with. Without their responsibility to lead, they still have the same problems, though they may be in latent form.  Leadership just brings out what is already there - insecurity, lust, fear, anger, bitterness, laziness, etc.  George Verwer, my mentor, once said that if you took a picture of a leader at the right (or wrong) time, all of them would be disqualified at some point.  They are going to mess up regardless of what position they are given to lead in. How then do people under their leadership navigate the brokenness of their leader? How do they continue supporting and undergirding their leader while at same time keeping the brokenness of the leader in view? The answer is submission. 


I'd like to "submit" a definition of biblical submission...so here goes,


"Submission is the awareness and acceptance of a leader's brokenness balanced with the decision to entrust oneself to them for the sake of Christ."


That balance requires much of the one submitting.  Submission - true submission - requires as much character as true leadership does.  


Submission is a human dynamic, not a religious one, so here it goes for a more generic understanding of submission,


"Submission is the awareness and acceptance of a leader's brokenness balanced with the decision to entrust oneself to them for the sake of whatever purpose holds them together."


I understand that submission is also necessary to make the ship run.  You need a captain and a 1st and 2nd mate with a deck crew and an engine room to make the ship run smoothly and to avoid all out anarchy.  Our present discussion is dealing with leaders who are called to lead people on more than just a practical level, but also at the level of their heart, their character and to honor the God-given dignity of each person in the process of working towards something together.  


So does it work? I know that for me the choice to submit doesn't even feel like submission when the leader is someone who accepts their own brokenness before you have to and also understands that they lead with a limp, but lead nonetheless.  

The Pineridge Reservation on 20/20

Thank you to Richard Twiss for posting this on the CCDA Facebook page based on his presentation at CCDA this year!

Thomas L. Friedman on Successful Movements & OWS

Get More: Music News

Moral Dilemmas Can Be Biblical Paradoxes

Roger Olson, an Arminian theologian, has written on his blog about how his interaction with Calvinists usually ends up with two ships passing in the night.  He writes down one of my biggest questions with the Biblicism of Calvinism - the fact that as a Calvinist, you would need to believe and accept that the acts of God, however horrific they might be, are "good" and "righteous" because God is vindicated merely by the fact that he is God.  This sounds good and seems godly, but are there other options?  He writes...

"For example (I’m musing here because I’m not sure about this): It seems to me that most 5 point Calvinists I know seem bound and determined to believe anything they think the Bible says regardless of how horrific that may be.  In other words, IF they became convinced that somehow they had been overlooking something in Scripture (as they think I do) and, in fact, God and the devil are actually the same being such that God is evil, they would believe it because the Bible says it." 


It seems right that we trust God as much as Calvinism says we should - even if it seems his actions and attitudes towards humanity are horrific, terrible or just plain mean.  But what if there is another way?  What if the seeming moral dilemmas that God's horrific actions present us with are actually designed by God to be a paradox?

What is the role of the paradox in Scripture?  The paradox - Martin Luther said that Christianity was a religion of paradoxes - is a dilemma that causes us to seek resolution but doesn't give it, because his thoughts are not our and his was are not our ways.  So, would it be ok to just accept that the actions of God that we have a hard time accepting are paradoxes and not just realities to accept or not accept.  The third option is that we start by throwing our hands up and seeking the paradoxical solution - "I don't know."


Check out the counterpoint books - Against Calvinism by Roger Olson and For Calvinism by Michael S. Horton.

God makes us awesome!!!!

"I was brought up in a Christian movement where, because God had to be given pre-eminence, nothing else was allowed to be important.  I have broken through to the position that because God exists, everything else has significance."  - Irish Poet Evangeline Patterson    (pg. 26 in Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Noll)

Emotional Leadership

"Leaders, you can lead with emotions by opening them up to the people you lead, but you must never go to the point of manipulating the people that trust you with the emotions that you freed."

Holiness Is Not an Attribute of God

Nathan:  Holiness is not an attribute of God?!                                                                                                                           


Well it seems that it is the way in which he interacts with the world he's created, not an attribute of his character. When he calls us to holiness as he is holy, he is asking us to relate to the world in the same way he does, in a specific "dynamic" that flows from his character. Kindness, patience and gentleness are virtues that flow from him and holiness is the dynamic by which we experience these virtues. Holiness is the blueprint for how God interacts with the world he's created, not an attribute of his character. It's a way of life that he calls us to - a way to interact with the world in the way of Jesus.




Nathan:  Holiness can turn into exclusivity and elitism rather than a way of interacting in a good way with all of Creation. Some Jews in the N.T. took this need to be holy and did turn it into exclusivity and elitism. This was a barrier to the Gospel that Paul dealt with continuously. Yet there was still a need for holiness. What's the balance is my question and I feel closer to it than ever before.




Lonnie:  Interesting thoughts, but not sure I agree (though this might be semantics). Scripture doesn't tell us that God does holiness, or command us in turn to do holiness, but rather it states that God IS holy, and we are likewise commanded to BE holy. (1st Peter 1:16)

I am not sure where you would get a difference between holiness, and the other attributes of God (ie. kindness, justice, love) I am also not sure how this makes much a difference either, since being holy will include us doing things that will set us apart.The only reason I mention this, is that it does seem dangerous to be playing around with God's attributes, and dismissing one or another of them as not being attributes (or in the case of Openness Theology, deciding one is more important or supreme to his other attributes).

Nathan:  I'm drawing from Lev. 10:10 where there is a distinction made between what is understood as sacred or common or profane. The Hebrews had three different categories (not sacred and secular) Holiness is understood as the way that these three categories interacted. 


The sacred was to be "separated" from the common and "protected" from the profane. The first item in Scripture that is called holy is "time"! God is not the first to be called holy in Scripture. Inanimate objects are called holy. Holiness can be ascribed to things, people, ways of life, space and time, even ideas. 


The problem is that it would be a stretch to call a certain space "kind" or a certain time of the week "generous" or an object "patient." A virtue/attribute seems to describe something different than what holiness is after. Things that are holy can also be holy for a time - with a start and end date, whereas you are either just or unjust, kind or unkind and there is never a good time to stop being kind. Moral purity is not equated with holiness - it is assumed (subsumed) underneath it or as an implication of holiness. 


Therefore, it seems that holiness is a description of a way of life that involves the attributes of God, as a blueprint of how to engage the world around us, not a virtue or an attribute. It is more robust and holistic and requires us to consider every aspect of life in every sphere and then determine how all of these should relate in a "good" way.




Lonnie:   It isn't a stretch though to give an object an attribute. It is done countless times in literature. Or to give a time period attributes is not unheard of either. Christmas (the time period) is supposed to be a Generous time. Even if that did hold up, it is a stretch to use that as a reason why holiness cannot be an attribute. Objects being described as holy did have attributes then. If nothing else, they were holy, becuase the Lord or whoever described them as such. They were set apart from other objects that weren't holy. 

Starting and end dates to attributes do not take away the attribute status. One can have the attribute of Kindness, or mercy, and then lose it, or suddenly gain it where it didn't exist before. In fact that is something we as Christians should chase after! Many more "start dates" to many wonderful attributes we do not currently have, but need. Eternalness in attributes only really exists in God, everywhere else it is finite, as in all things.

I couldn't agree more with your final statement. I would state that actions themselves are less so than attributes. One can perform actions in the moment, and do wonderful things briefly, but to have the attribute of said concept (kindness, holiness, etc) you must consistently and persistently show that quality before people will begin to think, "Wow, Nathan is a kind/just/merciful/supertough person!"I think where we are similar in our statements though is that in BOTH structures, and acting out of the attribute of holiness (or an acting of holiness itself) requires actions and lifestyle.

Nathan:   Good response Lonon. I would say that the ability for an object to be holy comes from someone with the authority to make it holy and make it unholy. This then makes it impossible for an object to have the intrinsic ability to be holy. Intrinsic to God is the way in which he relates to the world so we can call him holy. 

I would also comment that for time, place or objects to be given an attribute or virtue, one does so poetically and figuratively. Kindness is not a necessary attribute of time, place or any object. It is a necessary attribute of God - meaning that because he exists, kindness exists as a quality or virtue. 

We bear his image by also having certain inalienable virtues or aspects of goodness as we image him. Whether we allow his image in us to be seen or not is our decision, but our imaging of him is not something we can fundamentally alter - though we can hide and distort it. This is why the Trinity and humanity are set apart from all other aspects of life and maintain certain attributes that are necessary to our existence. Objects, places or time do not need attributes/virtues to exists necessarily.

"If you want to be a martyr for Jesus, start by getting arrested for Jesus"

Native American Indigenous Theologians!

Best of Facebook 10/9/11

Wall Street - sometimes you have to do what you have to do, but you also don't have to do what you don't have to do 


‎"If God is not doing it in the broader culture, he's probably not doing it in the church either. The disheartening part for most Christians is that the reverse does not have to be true."


‎"It is striking to me how naming someone's dignity can be more disruptive and unsettling than focusing on their depravity!" - Bryan Nixon

‎"What you do while you wait indicates, most clearly to the world around you, the kind of person you really are" - life lesson learned by not waiting well...

"Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do" - The Late Steve Jobs

‎"If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on." - Steve Jobs


"To be a prophet one must also be an apophatic." ( to speak prophetically one must do so with authority that isn't your own or with certainty that isn't yours. Kataphatic certainty is divested of prophetic urgency and authority).

Wall Street and Intelligent Subversion

‎"Using the tool of the oppressor to call the oppressor to account is just one more act of intelligent subversion."

No one protests the ability to produce, purchase or use quality products - the protest seems to follow the unguarded and unregulated ability of a few profit mongers who live above the law of conscience and won't allow regulations to guard them from exploiting the U.S. economy. 


These people are criminals but no one wants to call them to account because though corruption hurts a lot of people over a long period of time - being a whistleblower causes the whistleblower to end up shouldering the cost by being scapegoated immediately. When no one ends up whistleblowing from inside, people incite from the outside and protest at their own cost. 


In the case of Wall Street - many of the protesters have nothing or very little to lose. When it gets to the point where there is nothing or little to lose by good people who just want some work and a bit of justice, someone on top is usually to blame. Without proper regulation good people on the rich end of the profit can also end up acting criminally - something they never thought they would do when they started out. 


The problem is systemic as much as anything else and requires rigorous systemic regulation. People can't be trusted no matter how good they are when they are responsible to manage as much power and wealth as Wall Street has been entrusted with. Too many good people have lost too much because too many good people became criminals on Wall Street due to a lack or regulations.  Good people on both ends of this problem need help and criticizing the protests may only prolong the arrival of that help.  As my 75 year old mentor would always quip, "something is always better than nothing." 

Why Derek doesn't think John Piper goes far enough

In an article written by Derek Oulette about why John Piper doesn't go far enough with racial diversity, I had this response, I wonder what others think:






"It seems that Piper doesn't have enough to account for real diversity (though he may not understand why) because it seems for him that the Gospel has nothing directly to do with diversity since it only addresses the soul of the person. In the revivals of the 18th century, which Piper is an avid reader of, the contact point for the Gospel was the message of justification by faith alone - i.e. there was no need to contextualize the Gospel and so the whole person was ignored and only their soul was addressed. 


Once the soul was fixed by the Gospel then the whole person would follow = Reaganomics proposed this through Trickle Down Economics. Give the Rich a break and their ability to create jobs and a stronger economy will trickle down to the the rest of society. This is a similar dynamic when conservative theologians view the soul as the most important aspect of the human being to be "saved." If you get the soul fixed, everything will receive it's "trickle down" effect and receive the implications of what good the Gospel does to a soul. It seemed that since the soul is "transcultural" there was less of a need to address the embodied cultural aspects of a person or community's lifeways as it related to sharing the Gospel. 


Piper seems to follow this line of thinking and has preached that the Gospel, when preached, has a "magical" power all unto itself that the preacher cannot effect because the Gospel has a stand alone power that goes out to those who hear it - just because it is the message of salvation. Though this sounds good, it allows the preacher to ignore the cultural and embodied nature of the person they are preaching to be seen as a necessary component in how they shape their message in order to contextualize and inculturate the message - thereby ultimately divesting the responsibility for real ethnic and cultural diversity within a community. 


That's a harsh critique for him, but it seems to be true. When it comes to method - "If God is on your side, then you don't have to count the bodies - literally." I wouldn't have such a problem with how he preaches except that he's forceful and exclusive - if you or I don't hold to Reformed doctrine, then we are on the outs or farther from the center than he is and it doesn't seem that there is much discussion otherwise. Posture is just as important as positions when it comes to how we carry our theological convictions."