Paul, Roman Imperial Ideology, and Roman Imperial Cult

I returned this weekend from the ETS Northeast Regional where I read a paper, "A Primer on Paul, Roman Imperial Ideology, and the Roman Imperial Cult." Blogspot doesn't offer the abilityto post a pdf file. But my friend, Dan Cruver was kind enough to post it on his blog:

http://www.eucatastrophe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/a-primer-for-the-study-of-paul-roman-imperial-ideology-and-the-roman-imperial-cult.pdf

Enjoy,
Shu

Two Degrees of Separation

You have all probably heard of "Six Degrees of Separation." Well, in my case, I found only 2 degrees of separation between me and Kevin, the author of the article that I critiqued. Kevin was kind enough to respond to my post, and we have begun an interesting dialogue (which he invited in his speech). If you want to track along, check out my original response to his paper, "A Fundamentalism Worth Saving."

http://biblicalgrecophile.blogspot.com/2009/02/fundamentalism-worth-savinger.html

I plan on posting another entry this week, but I am finalizing a paper that I will be reading at the Northeast Region of the Evangelical Theological Society. I will post as soon as I am finished touching up the paper.

Blessings,
Shu

The Coming Evangelical Collapse

A friend of mine just forwarded me the link to this fascinating article entitled, The Coming Evangelical Collapse. If the writer is even close to the truth (which I suspect he is), the current topic on this blog becomes all the more urgent.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

Read it and let me know what you think.

Blessings,
Shu

A Fundamentalism Worth Saving, Part II: A Fundamentalism Truly Worth Saving

I think I want to spend the next several posts talking more about Kevin Bauder's article, A Fundamentalism Worth Saving (http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/AACCS.htm). Last post, I expressed both my admiration for, and my strong disagreement with his article. Reflection on my last post (and a couple of the comments that I received about it) has made me want to lay out my own version of a fundamentalism worth saving. So, the plan is to spend the next few posts doing so. I want to offer my version in the same spirit as Kevin. That is, I would love to invite any readers into a dialogue about this.

So, let me start by saying that a fundamentalism worth saving is a fundamentalism that takes its humanity seriously. Kudos to Kevin on this one. If you Kevin's his article, you read:

James tells us very clearly that we cannot claim to honor God if we despise humanity, because humans are made in the image of God. We will recognize the grandeur and dignity of being human, and we will value everything that sets humanity apart from other creatures and makes us godlike.

If I read Genesis correctly, God's image in man is reflected in more than just mind, emotion, and will. God's image in man makes him a ruler over the earth, a Vice-Regent, a Steward. God left man with the responsibility of developing and conserving the created order. The Divine Mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, Adam's mission in the garden (Genesis 2:8,9,15) both teach that mankind is to extend his dominion and turn the pre-fall world into a massive garden.

Even after the fall, the mandate continues. Dominion is not lost (contra Theonomists). Psalm 8 and 104 express this nicely. In fact, Genesis 5 relates how humanity's dominion continues to develop. We read about the development of iron work, music, etc. Notice that dominion implies the development of technology and art, beauty and functionality.

I think Kevin states it nicely:

We cannot claim that we are good Christians if we are not even good people. Good people are not contemptuous of poetry, history, law, government, and the other humane disciplines. Rather, they invest themselves in such activities, using these tools in the effort (however misguided and sinful) to enrich the world. It is noble to fashion a beautiful object or an intricate idea. It is a splendid thing to lead a nation well or to challenge an injustice. Why should people believe that we love the greater good of the gospel if they see that we despise the lesser good of the truly humane?

Salvation should only heighten our commitment to being human. After all, if the fall only mared the image of God in us, does not Redemption begin to renew God's image in us? Isn't that the point of 2 Corinthians 3:18?

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Isn't this beautiful? Redemption and sanctification renew the image of God in us. Thus, salvation makes us more human, not less. This implies that Christians should be more involved in human things, not less. We become cultural gnostics if we withdrawl from our culture. This means that, as Christians, we need to redeem the culture, not abandon it. We need Christian artists, we need Christian lawyers, scientists, engineers, etc.

I want to value more than just classical western culture and American, upper-middle class sensibilities (without disparaging them, either). I want to value Asian cultures, African cultures, and South American Cultures--in all of their beauty. I only want to reject elements of their cultures the directly conflict with the Scriptures. This includes tastes in music.

My best friend is from Nigeria. Sometimes when we ride in his car, he plays music from his heritage. He happens to speak the Yoruba language. The other day, I asked him if the music we were listening to had a different sound than the music from other Nigerian language groups. He informed me that Yoruba music was quite different than the music of other language groups. I couldn't help but think of Revelation 5. Revelation 5 describes the fact that God is calling out a people from every tribe and nation to reign on the earth with him.

Imagine the worship in the culmination--when Jesus returns to earth and establishes his eternal kingdom--people from every tribe and nation worshiping God. I can't wait to hear how my Asian brothers and sisters will praise God. I can't wait to hear how my African brothers and sisters will praise God. I can't wait to see how each of the tribes and nations praise God in their unique way.

So, a fundamentalism worth saving is going to be a fundamentalism that takes its humanity seriously. Here, I use Humanity in its most universal sense: All of the world, not just classical, western culture.

blessings,
dave

A Fundamentalism Worth Saving....er, well...mostly.

I just came across an excellent article by Kevin Bauder. Kevin gave an address at a conference of fundamentalists that he called, "A Fundamentalism Worth Saving." I was so excited by what I was reading that I was almost in tears (literally)...

Then came the "cultural fundamentalism"...

[I would strongly encourage you to read the article before reading the rest of this post. It is available at: http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/AACCS.htm]

After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to be more concerned about doctrine and defending the gospel...

After affirming that Fundamentalism has too long been known for dividing over secondary issues...

After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to take its humanity and the humanities seriously...

After affirming that Fundamentalism ought to take learning seriously...

Kevin had me... But, then came the "cultural fundamentalism"

"This means that we will label some activities as prohibited and others as obligatory even when Scripture does not directly address them. In doing so, we run the risk of appearing to go beyond Scripture, but this is unavoidable. To do otherwise is to settle for a truncated morality that disallows us from applying biblical principles to most of what we do."

(one skipped paragraph with which I agree...)

"In short, the only way to be a historic, biblical fundamentalist is to be a cultural fundamentalist. The only alternatives are, first, to say that cultures are beyond the Bible’s ability to critique and correct, or second, to argue that fundamentalism is concerned only with doctrine and not with obedience. I doubt that any of us really wants to take either of those steps."

"The failure to deal with meaning lies behind some of the complaints of the younger fundamentalists. Take the matter of clothing. Clothing makes a statement about who we think we are and who we think others are under the circumstances under which we meet. We do not wear tattered jeans to weddings, nor do we wear tuxes to bale hay. It seems to me that a Christian leader will not wish to present an appearance that endorses the current culture of incivility. I am sorry, but phat pants, pony tails, piercings, tattoos, and studded leather are going to be of limited usefulness to one’s testimony for Christ. They are not even useful within the culture where they are accepted, for that is a culture that needs to be rebuked and corrected by Scripture. Of course, our mainstream culture also needs to be rebuked and corrected at many points. I am not suggesting that we should model ourselves after mainstream culture, but rather that we should refuse to adopt any cultural accoutrement that contradicts Christian meanings."
(All bolds are mine)

Here is where Kevin lost me.

If you read his article, you know that he makes a huge shift here. Suddenly, he gives up ground on biblical authority and moves to man-made tradition--which is not very baptist, by the way.

I have no problem arguing that human culture can be worldly. I agree that George Carlin's obscenities are inappropriate for believers. But how do you get from George Carlin dropping the F-bomb to tattoos and/or studded leather?

Look, I understand the argument: If you say that culture is neutral, and not sinful, you are a cultural Pelagianist. I agree--so long as you don't say that all culture is sinful (I think Kevin would agree with this)-Which brings us to a problem: Who decides which elements of culture are sinful?

I wish it were as easy as guilt by association. Are tattoos and studded-leather Jackets really wrong? Kevin would have fundamentalism build itself around avoiding these sins. I assume that means he shouldn't wear business suits either. After all, Wall Street businessmen are some of the most greedy, ego-driven, drug and/or alcohol addicted people in the country. I don't think we should be so quick to judge people's hearts by what we can see on the outside.

So where does that leave us? Here my answer is simple: I let the Scriptures define what elements of culture are sinful. If I can say that something is sinful from the Scriptures, I call it sinful. If I have to guess what is going on in a person's heart, or I have to use my personal taste or sensibilities as the sole criteria for judging something, I refuse to call it sinful. Unfortunately, Kevin (by his own admission) is willing to go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture.

I must say, I can't help but admire Kevin--even as I disagree with him. The first half of the article is compelling. By the end of the article, he invites dialogue about what he says. That's what this post is for me. Now, I doubt Kevin will ever read this post. If he did happen to come accross it, however, I think he and I could probably have an excellent dialogue. He wants to see a fundamentalism worth saving. I want a fundamentalism worth saving. I am only sorry that our visions for a 'fundamentalism worth saving' are so vastly different.

I would strongly encourage you to read Kevin's article. Its worth reading...with great discernment. Frankly, I wish I had written the article--minus, of course, the cultural fundamentalism.

blessings,
Shu

Welcome to Biblical Grecophile

Welcome to Biblical Grecophile. This is my blog dedicated to anything from popular culture, theology, to biblical Greek. I am going to try to update it on a bi-weekly basis.