Income inequality in the ancient world and now (Scot McKnight and Tim De Chant)

In his recent blog post Scot McKnight points us to an interesting post by Tim De Chant, which is about income inequality in the Roman Empire in the ancient world. (Click here and here for the two blog posts.) Here are some quotes from the blog post.

"Over the last 30 years, wealth in the United States has been steadily concentrating in the upper economic echelons. Whereas the top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent."

"In total, Schiedel and Friesen figure the elite orders and other wealthy made up about 1.5 percent of the 70 million inhabitants the empire claimed at its peak. Together, they controlled around 20 percent of the wealth..."

"These numbers paint a picture of two Romes, one of respectable, if not fabulous, wealth and the other of meager wages, enough to survive day-to-day but not enough to prosper. The wealthy were also largely concentrated in the cities."

"Schiedel and Friesen aren’t passing judgement on the ancient Romans, nor are they on modern day Americans. Theirs is an academic study, one used to further scholarship on one of the great ancient civilizations. But buried at the end, they make a point that’s difficult to parse, yet provocative. They point out that the majority of extant Roman ruins resulted from the economic activities of the top 10 percent. “Yet the disproportionate visibility of this ‘fortunate decile’ must not let us forget the vast but—to us—inconspicuous majority that failed even to begin to share in the moderate amount of economic growth associated with large-scale formation in the ancient Mediterranean and its hinterlands.”"

"In other words, what we see as the glory of Rome is really just the rubble of the rich, built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers, traces of whom have all but vanished. It’s as though Rome’s 99 percent never existed. Which makes me wonder, what will future civilizations think of us?"

The gap between the haves and have-nots was huge in the Roman Empire as well as in many countries in the West today. Since the events of the New Testament took place in the Roman Empire, the socioeconomic context of the Empire is important for us as we read the Bible. (See my previous post about the economic profile of the earliest church in the Roman Empire here.) This, in turn, is important for us today as we try to apply the New Testament to our own contexts in the affluent West.

Why "social" justice? (Scot McKnight)

For a long time I have been thinking whether I should include the word "social" when I refer to "justice" in the Bible. In terms of biblical usage, "social justice" is not strictly speaking the language used in the Scripture. But on the other hand when "justice" is mentioned in the Bible, it has much to do with social and communal living.

In his recent blog post Scot McKnight discusses this matter. Here I cite a few things McKnight says.

Tim King is a former student of mine, works with Jim Wallis, and is pointing out something I would affirm. The word “social” has been added to the word “justice” because “social” has been too often neglected. Having said that, though, I would plead with us to learn to use the word “justice” biblically — it refers to being right with God, with self, with others, with the world — so that we don’t have to add “social” (with others, with the world) and so we can cease with our gnostic-like spirituality where it is only “me and God.”

I am ready to concede the point that if we properly define our terms, the “social” in social justice and the “personal” in personal salvation should both be dropped. But, I’m not willing to stop using the modifier “social” when it comes to justice until Christians fully engage the biblical definition of justice.

Someday, justice will be flowing like a river and righteousness like an everflowing stream.

On that day, we won’t be fighting about whether or not it is “social” justice or just plain old justice that is rolling.

I gather that the last two sentences echo Amos' words about justice. I think Scot McKnight has something for us to ponder here.

Click here for McKnight's blog post.

The "grammar of the gospel" (Tim Gombis)

In a recent post in his blog, Tim Gombis says something profound about the gospel. He makes six points in his post, I am citing the first three here (and I will highlight a few things in this colour).

"First, because the gospel is the announcement of the arrival of the Kingdom of God, talk about any part of that multi-faceted redemptive and world-altering reality is “the gospel.”  All of these, then, are proclamations of the gospel: forgiveness in Christ for the guilty; a warm welcome among the body of Christ for the lonely and alienated; God’s defeat of Sin and Death in Christ; a satisfying meal among God’s people for the hungry; liberation from bondage through God’s Spirit and God’s people; reconciliation in Christ for formerly alienated groups.  These concrete realities, and so many others, are instantiations of God’s Kingdom as it invades and begins to transform an enslaved cosmos.

Talking about any of them is talking about the gospel.

Second, the “call” of the gospel is the call to turn from sin, selfishness, and idolatry, and to take on Kingdom practices that enact, embody, activate, and participate in that reality.  The call of the gospel, then, is exhorting all people to receive forgiveness in Christ, to forgive others in Christ, to serve the poor in Christ, to reconcile with former enemies in Christ, to stop oppressing and manipulating others in Christ, to receive others as gifts in Christ, to celebrate redemption in Christ, to give thanks to God in Christ.  Concrete practices such as these are embodiments of Kingdom participation that draw upon and radiate God’s presence and power by God’s Spirit.

To do any of them is to respond to the gospel.

As I said previously, the gospel speaks with a variety of voices depending on the situation.  To those oppressing others, the gospel will speak a word of rebuke and a call to inhabit the life-giving Kingdom of God along with others.  To those trapped in despair, the gospel sounds a note of sweet grace, relief, and comfort.  Christian people must inhabit and explore the richness of the gospel to learn how it overwhelms and transforms any and all situations for the glory of God and the good of the world.

Third, to respond to the gospel is to be compelled by this Kingdom reality and to begin enacting Kingdom behaviors among God’s people in Christ."

Tim Gombis refers to Scot McKnight's new book, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. It seems that there are points of contact between his and McKnight's understanding of the gospel. I have previously blogged about McKnight's new book, which can be found here and here.

(Click here for Tim Gombis' entire blog post.)

Joel Willitts' comments on Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel

Joel Willitts has posted two posts in Euangelion about Scot McKnight's book The King Jesus Gospel, which I mentioned in my previous post. Here is an excerpt from Willitts' comments.

"Here’s the central issue Scot is tackling in the book, and its one that has been a perennial discussion since at least the time that I’ve been an adult Christian: Evangelism as a call to decision versus evangelism as a call to a life of discipleship. The former has led to the problem of having “The Decided” in our pews who are yet “The Discipled”. According to Scot, this problem has been created by our “Plan of Salvation” gospel theology. While in no way downplaying the need for a decisive action as a first step, Scot argues that the biblical gospel must be defined such that the end goal is not only or singularly “personal salvation” from sin, but salvation from sin so to participate in God’s epic story of world rescue."

Click here and here for Willitts' posts.

Scot McKnight's new book The King Jesus Gospel

Mike Bird just posted this promo clip of Scot McKnight's new book The King Jesus Gospel.

It is really worth watching.

(Click here for Mike Bird's blog post.)

Scripture, God's authority and his mission (Scot McKnight on Tom Wright's book)

Scot McKnight has written a post in his blog about N T Wright's book Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today.

Two excerpts from McKnight's post.

"The expression “authority of Scripture” is shorthand for “the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through Scripture” (21). There is something important here, for Wright acknowledges that authority is God’s — and derivatively of Scripture. Any time someone equates the two, there opens the possibility for idolatry to occur. Furthermore, Wright is keen on showing that this authority of God is God’s authority in working out the Kingdom mission for his people and creation. Scripture, then, is a sub-branch of mission, the Spirit, eschatology, and the Church itself (29). Again, very important."

"When Wright comes to sum up his entire argument, on pp. 115-116, he says this: The authority of Scripture is “a picture of God’s sovereign and saving plan for the entire cosmos, dramatically inaugurated by Jesus himself, and now to be implemented through the Spirit-led life of the church precisely as the scripture-reading community.” Thus, the “authority of Scripture” is put into action in the Church’s missional operations. Scripture, he says, is more than a record of revelation and was never simply about imparting information — it is God’s word to redeem his people as God works out his plan for the entire created order. And you may know how the Bible teaches what Tom calls a 5-Act play: creation, fall, Israel, Jesus, Church. We are in the 5th Act now."

It is a book worth reading.

Click here for McKnight's post.

Scot McKnight on the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20-26 (and Luke 4:16-21)

I am reading Scot McKnight's One.Life: Jesus Calls, We Follow. In one chapter he looks at Luke 4:16-21 and 6:20-26 (which is often called the Sermon on the Plain).

McKnight makes the following comments on the latter passage.

"Imagine what it would have been like for a poor Galilean to hear these words, and then imagine what it would have been like to be a rich Galilean and hear these words. The first group's chests were swelling as the second group's blood pressure was rising." (page 65)

Every time I read these words of Jesus I wonder which side I'm on. Am I with the poor or with the rich? I think Jesus wants us to feel that tension. He came, as he announced in his first sermon, for the poor and for the hungry and for those who weep and for those who are persecuted; and he came against the rich and against the well fed and against those who laugh now and against those who are popular. This is why he blesses the poor and offers only 'woes' to the rich." (page 66; emphasis original)

Don't think that McKnight's words are too strong. Read Luke 6:20-26 and you will find that his comments are fair.

Scot McKnight on the atoning death of Christ

Looking for something to reflect on at Easter?

Click here for Scot McKnight's post on the atoning death of Christ.

What is heaven? (from Scot McKnight)

Scot McKnight has written something about heaven that I've been think for awhile. As I read the Bible, I find that "heaven", for the ancients, would mean the "sky" (according to their worldview and not in the modern scientific sense).

(Click here for McKnight's full post.)

"There’s a reason why the ancients, both Jews and Greek and Romans, used a word like “heaven” for where God is and where folks go when they die. Yes, there’s lots of variety in the ancient world; and they used a variety of words, but the NT word is “heaven” and that word means “sky.” And there all kinds of Jewish texts about ascending into heaven. Why did Jesus and the early Christians fasten on that word for doing the lion’s share of work on where God is? Obviously this is phenomenology. God was above and beyond and when we die, if we are righteous, we go to be with God and that means we go to heaven (in the skies)...The NT modifies this: it eventually lands not on just ascending into heaven (into the skies) but on a meeting of heaven and earth in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Most Christians need to learn this and the sooner the better. The “final” place in the Bible is the New Heavens and the New Earth — and these two meet in Jerusalem! Read Revelation 20-22..."

(Note: McKnight's post is on Rob Bell's book Love Wins. But I do not intend to comment on this book here. Or else it will confuse the matter.)

Scot McKnight: Exploring Rob Bell's Love Wins

I will try to include what Scot McKnight has to say about Rob Bell's new book Love Wins here in the coming days. That is, I will include the links to the posts from McKnight's blog when he discusses Rob Bell's book. (Sorry if I miss some of McKnight's posts. I am a busy man.)

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 1" on 1st April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 2" on 4th April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 3" on 6th April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 4" on 8th April 2011.

Click here for "Rob Bell's Confession" on 8th April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 5" on 11th April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 6" on 13th April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 7" on 15th April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 8" on 18th April 2011.

Click here for "Exploring Love Wins 9" on 21st April 2011.

(See here for other reviews on Rob Bell's Love Wins.)

Scot McKnight on some reviews of Rob Bell's new book Love Wins

In Scot McKnight's blog there are a few reviews on Rob Bell's new book Love Wins. Click here for the link.

A few days ago McKnight said this:

"As you may know, I consider the issues surrounding universalism, the love of God and the justice of God, the relationship of our life now and our life then … I consider these issues to be the most significant challenge to the Christian faith today. Pounding the hell pulpit or knee-jerk defenses of what Rob says aren’t going to satisfy the aching questions so many have about this topic today." (Click here for the full post.)

I think the last sentence here is wise.

Church, community, being counter-cultural

I found the following from Scot McKnight's blog. Is the church about community? Does it have the courage to be counter-cultural?

(Click here for the post.)

"[The] church is and will remain at the epicenter of Christian community, it is the community, essential for worship, for sacrament, for fellowship, but the work of the church, the work of the pastor, is not to lead or cast vision or draw people in, but to equip, disciple, and send Christians out."

"We need to be counter cultural in approach to the church as committed community and as the body of Christ."

What do you think?

Scot McKnight's comments on the discussion about Rob Bell's new book

Just read Scot McKnight's blog post about the recent discussion on Rob Bell's new book.

Here are some excerpts from McKnight's post.

"My horror, then, was three-fold: first, the image of God that is depicted when hell becomes the final, or emphatic, word and, second, the absence of any context for how to talk about judgment in the Bible and, third, the kinds of emotion expressed: we saw too much gloating and pride and triumphalism on both sides. I felt like those who watched the sinking of the Titanic and who didn’t cringe at the thought of thousands sinking into the Atlantic to a suffocating death. They were instead singing and dancing to a jig that they were right or had been predicting the sinking all along."

"If there is an eternity, and I believe there is, and if there is a judgment, and I believe there is, then let us keep the immensity and gravity of it all in mind and refrain from flippancy, gloating, triumphalism — and let it reduce us to sobriety and humility and prayer. When Abraham faced the prospects of the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 18, he didn’t gloat that he was on the safe side but supplicated YHWH for mercy for those who weren’t. We need more Abrahams."

"To talk about wrath apart from this depiction of the grace-consuming God is to put forward a view of God that is not only unbiblical but potentially monstrous. And, to put forward a view of God that is absent of final judgment, yes of wrath, yes of eternal judgment, is to offer a caricature of the Bible’s God."

I think McKnight has a lot for us to consider. I was going to post something myself on God's judgment and mercy, but I think McKnight has already said much for us to think about.

Click here for his full blog post.

Scot McKnight: A gospel-shaped theology

Here Scot McKnight aptly says what I have been trying to say in my teaching.

"Pick up your standard textbook-ish systematic theology and you are most likely to get an exhaustive study of a one topic after another. The order of those topics matters immensely, and it just so happens that many theologians write theologies that are shaped by salvation (soteriology). Thus, the God, Man/Sin, Christ, Salvation, Spirit and Eschatology, often prefaced with Scripture, is essentially an ordering of topics through the doctrine of salvation.

Dig a bit further and you will learn in many of these books that “salvation” means the same thing as “gospel” so that a theology of salvation is a theology of the gospel. Which it isn’t, and the order of the above topics proves my point. They are salvation-shaped and not gospel-shaped, else they’d have other topics more prominent.

What we are most in need of is a thoroughgoing sketch of theology through the lens of gospel. Those topics above would come up but they would be framed within the orbit of other ideas.

Questions: How gospel-shaped is your theology? What questions would you ask to see if a theology is gospel-shaped? What are the major indicators of a gospel-shaped theology?

I see two questions that can be asked and those questions will indicate gospel-shaped: How central of a role does Israel’s Story/history play in the theology? How central is the resurrection? Everyone will have the Cross, but does the theology have resurrection as a central theme? Everyone will have christology, but does being Messiah and Lord make its way to the front? "

Click here for Scot McKnight's post (from which the above citation can be found).

Paul's "the righteousness of God", the debate between Piper and N T Wright, etc

Just read an interesting post from Daniel Kirk's blog about Paul's famous phrase "the righteousness of God".

Click here to see the post. You might also be interested in reading Scott McKnight's comment on this post - it's the first comment.

Orthodoxy, Inerrancy, Protestantism, etc

Today I saw some interesting comments from a blog on the web. (See here for the link - accessed on 5th March 2010.) I think they are very interesting. Here they are.

"Let me say this clearly, if bluntly: theologians know what Orthodoxy is. They know "what" defines it: the Creeds. They know Creeds don't define everything; they know Creeds are parameters and boundaries but not definitions of everything. When you say classical orthodoxy or Orthodoxy, theologians know what you mean."
"Protestantism is more or less defined by the solas. Protestant theologians know this."

"Anabaptists largely define themselves by their connection to the Bible and by their own creeds/confessions or statements of faith. Anabaptist theologians know how they define things."

"PSA is not about classical orthodoxy (all we've got there is forgiveness of sins). It is, however, central to the Reformers. Both Luther and Calvin saw the atonement happening that way. No one argues, though, that it is the 'sole' metaphor. Some overemphasize it and squelch the others."

"Inerrancy is an odd one; the term and its meaning in many circles are connected to post Enlightenment apologetics. That the Bible is true, though, and fully true: Yes, historic Judaism and the Fathers (read vol. 1 on the opening "We believe" part of the 5 volume set on the Creed from IVP); clearly the Reformers were big on the truthfulness of Scripture and Calvin probably believed in what is now called inerrancy. (I had a colleague who wrote his dissertation on this.)"

An article on the Anabaptists

I found an article on about Anabaptism Scot McKnight's blog (accessed on 5th March 2010). Click here for the article.

I find this particular quote of Roland H. Bainton particularly interesting:

“The ideal of restitution or restoration was common in the age of Reformation, and all parties desired to restore something. The difference was only as to what, and how far back to go. Luther wished to restore the church of the early Middle Ages; for him the great corruption was the rise of the temporal power of the papacy in the eighth century. The Anabaptists went back further than any of the other groups, and turned exclusively to the New Testament. Even within the New Testament they tended to neglect Paul and to push back to Jesus. That is why (their) ideal of Restoration tends to coincide with the ideal of the imitation of Christ."

I really like the idea of imitation of Christ. But personally speaking I have problems with the tendency to neglect Paul and push back to the Gospels. Of course, Christ has to be the centre, and indeed the Triuine God has to be the centre of our belief and of our life. (And the centre of Paul's theology is Christ, I believe - and Paul reads the Scripture in light of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.) But as far as the Scripture goes, I believe that all Scripture is the God's revelation. I'll talk more about this in another post. (Click here for that post.)

Having said that, I am very inspired by the Anabaptists, mostly by their lives, ecclesiology and their social justice focus.