N.T. Wright article: One God, One Lord, One People

[anotherDan]

Not everyone's cup of tea, I'm sure.

N.T. Wright has, for me, brought possibilities to many of my former simplistic answers to certain theological questions. His books addressing the lay reader and non-scholar include Simply Christian, his modest version of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and The Last Word, subtitle: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. To these and others, he adds both scholarly works, as well as even simpler, very short books. IIR, two of the titles are The Meal Jesus Left Us and The Prayer Jesus Left Us.

There are many Internet resources presenting and discussing the theology of N.T. Wright, and the "new understanding of Paul" which he and others have been discussing for the last few decades. One good starting place is here.

This article, One God, One Lord, One People is as good an introduction to Wright's writing as anything. I would welcome any comments from interested parties.

I. INTRODUCTION

My aim in this paper is to examine a theme and context which is often marginalized but which, arguably, stands as close as any other to the heart of Paul's theology. I refer to the question of meat offered to idols, discussed in 1 Corinthians 8-10. My argument is, I hope, fairly simple. It is that Paul, in this passage, offers the Corinthian church, surrounded as it was by paganism, a Christological center for its belief and action, which relates directly and in a challenging manner to the task of confronting paganism with the gospel. Though the question of meat offered to idols has often been thought to have little contemporary relevance, I hope to show that the passage is not only exegetically fascinating and theologically thought provoking, but possesses more potential relevance to the church and the world of the late twentieth century than might at first sight be imagined.

Edited September 18, 2007 by anotherDan

[another spot]

Good article, Dan.

The first thought that crosses my mind, is grace is not the opposite of law, it is a different way of living and relating to God (both us to God and God to us). The emphasis and framework is different. Law is works. Grace still contains the moral precepts but relies more on a firmer and clearer recognition that God is our sufficiency (His power toward us). The point of grace is to understand that it’s not by the light of our own sparks. In reality, grace is also about service. The root word for charismata (spiritual gifts) is charis (grace).

I liked the remarks about the complaints of Israel about their food. Man seems to want to think God exists for man and not the other way around. This is reflected in serving God in order to receive (which ends in legalism and self service), instead of in order to serve others.

[another spot]

Something I read this morning:

Mat 25:34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mat 25:35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Mat 25:36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Mat 25:37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink?

Mat 25:38When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]?

Mat 25:39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mat 25:40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

Mat 25:41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mat 25:42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Mat 25:43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mat 25:44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mat 25:45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.

Mat 25:46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[another spot]

Isn't paganism in a nutshell self service by means of multiple "gods?" I. E. How to get what I want???

Edited September 18, 2007 by another spot

[wrdsandwrks]

Not everyone's cup of tea, I'm sure.

N.T. Wright has, for me, brought possibilities to many of my former simplistic answers to certain theological questions. His books addressing the lay reader and non-scholar include Simply Christian, his modest version of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and The Last Word, subtitle: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. To these and others, he adds both scholarly works, as well as even simpler, very short books. IIR, two of the titles are The Meal Jesus Left Us and The Prayer Jesus Left Us.

There are many Internet resources presenting and discussing the theology of N.T. Wright, and the "new understanding of Paul" which he and others have been discussing for the last few decades. One good starting place is here.

This article, One God, One Lord, One People is as good an introduction to Wright's writing as anything. I would welcome any comments from interested parties.

Great stuff Dan, I only had a few minutes this morning, and I read through about half of the article. Will have to finish it later and come back to the discussion.

[Sunesis]

I thought it was an excellent article. Definitely food for thought in these neo-paganistic times.

I particularly liked the idea of parody. Paganism, a weak parody of Christ and God.

You can see parody here on earth in many different forms. I thought of Auschwitz, the separating of people, one group to the left, one to the right. You see this separating in Revelation at Christ's coming.

Temples built all over the world - pyramids, mayan, egyptian, etc., a parody of God's true heavenly temple?

It seems our choice in these times is to withdraw or to assimilate. But Paul, shows the Christian way.

Great article.

[anotherDan]

Wright is not long-winded. He may be "long," but there's not much wind in there. He knows where he's going before he starts, and lays the necessary groundwork so that when he makes his central point, it cannot be so easily dismissed by making assumptions that he did not. He covers his bases, it seems to me, not in a defensive mode, but because it's good rhetorical and didactic practice. He is a force to reckon with, and is one of the most reasonable and effective voices today, IMO, in the field of Christian and biblical apologetics, especially in opposition to atheists like Dawson, and postmodern thought. A recurring theme in his writings is the trauma the Reformation did to authentic Christianity.

I want to respond to the posts that address the subject matter of the article, but I'm only home for lunch, and got to go swing the hammer again.

[Sunesis]

I'd like to know, what is the trauma the reformation did to Christianity.

[Bramble]

Isn't paganism in a nutshell self service by means of multiple "gods?" I. E. How to get what I want???

Is it? I doubt that actual pagans would define it that way. Their gods, not being your god, might have an entirely different view of what a relationship is all about, what service or deeds should be done. Many pagans view the relationship like kinship, not authoritarian in nature, nor is it evangelical, so you, an outsider, might not have much knowledge about what transpires between someone and their god.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ has some actual info.

One characteristic of many pagans--they respect other religions, even those who classify their own beliefs as evil. If you were to, say, call Christianity a weak parody on pagan sites I visit, people would take you to task for denigrating another's beliefs. But I understand that that is a doctrinal okey dokey in some Christian circles. Their interpretation of the Bible involve separation and enmity with those unlike them.

[Cynic]

I don’t have time to get into a conversation in here, but N. T. Wright’s influence (an influence that was possibly somewhat indirect through my former pastor’s friendship and theological involvement with a fellow named John Armstrong) was one of the factors that led to my decision to depart from a church I formerly attended.

A somewhat robust (and critical) critique of N. T. Wright’s teachings appears at http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf (you can use the “find” feature in Adobe Reader to search for the word Wright, and note particularly the critique that appears in pages 47-55).

Also, there are numerous Wright-related links (pro and con) at http://www.thepaulpage.com , whose webmaster I take for some fellow-traveler of Anthony Buzzard.

What is N. T. Wright about? I don’t have time to do the rereading and honing necessary (I have read a bit both by Wright and about Wright) to produce much of a critique, but in short, IIRC:

1. Wright redefines Pauline references to the “righteousness of God” as God’s covenantal faithfulness;

2. Wright denies that the righteousness of the Christian is constituted in Christ’s active obedience being imputed to the Christian;

3. Wright is not a flaming Christ-denier, and carries himself rather well when he’s set off against some rankly unbelieving Jesus Seminar-type.

4. Wright has (unfortunately) gained a degree of influence in Reformed circles, which, according to Peter Lillback, have historically been prone here and there to neo-nomianism (a form of works-righteousness), similarly as Lutheranism has in places and times experienced some antinomian tendencies.

In my solemn opinion, if the teaching of a purportedly Reformed church does not unequivocally recognize that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the Christian (constituting the Christian’s positive righteousness) as well as affirming that Christ’s suffering on the cross made satisfaction for the wrath of God due the Christian for the Christian’s sin, that church should be deemed doctrinally suspect by others in the Reformed community.

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

"N. T. Wright rejects the imputation of active obedience on the grounds that 'it gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship'" - R. Scott Clark, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, pg. 241.

Disclaimer: I never heard my former pastor deny or question that justification involves the imputation of Christ's active obedience. My problem was that his friend and theological buddy was questioning it, and that imputed righteousness ceased to be preached, while a conditional eschatological justification came to be stressed from the pulpit.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Cynic

[Cynic]

By the way,

What N. T. Wright is promoting is referred to as the "New Perspective on Paul,” or, in deference to variations that exist among NPP proponents, as one of the “New Perspectives on Paul.”

Edited September 19, 2007 by Cynic

[wrdsandwrks]

Great article. Is there something controversial about it?

Here are some of my notes and favorite quotes from the article:

There are two common responses to paganism:

dualism or assimilation: The third is to confront it in love by giving up rights for others

Avoiding pagan life styles by avoiding the raw material in which they deal is dualism; assimilating to those life styles is to abandon allegiance to the one God. The genuine alternative to both ways is to embrace the gospel as the reality of which paganism is the distorted copy.

Paul puts Jesus in the center of the great Jewish monotheistic texts:

I Cor. 8:5,6

Phil. 2:5-11

Col. 15-20

(This is something I would like to study further, he says that Paul is redefining monotheism by inserting Jesus Christ in the middle of Deut 6:4, the Shema)

"I punish my body and enslave it;" writes Paul, "so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified" 1 Corinthians 9:27.

A spirituality that does not contain at least the possibility of such an attitude stands under the warning that, though professing Christianity, it may in fact have embraced some form of paganism.

(This verse obviously contradicts Calvinist eternal security)

It's interesting to me that I Cor 10:1 claims as "our ancestors" the children of Israel in the wilderness:

So, while claiming the Jewish heritage not only for himself but for his erstwhile pagan converts ("our ancestors," v.1), he sees that one must go further.

I Corinthians 8 gods many lords many contrasted with One God and One Lord

This celebration resembles pagan feasts simply in the way that the sun is like a lightbulb: the former is the reality of which the latter is a copy invented by humans.

Instead of either assimilating or retreating into a dualistic ghetto, the church must seek to build shrines for the true god on ground at present occupied by paganism.

[anotherDan]

working on my end of the discussion

I was gonna try to get the graffiti off the walls.... someone painted "Wright sucks" there in a solemn font, but I think I'll just leave it there.

To further define my original post, which seemed clear enough to me, and still does, here's my idea for a thread:

Reading is good for learning. I'd like to propose a novel concept: read the article, and see if you can understand what the author is saying. Really. Then agree/disagree/discuss.

Edited September 19, 2007 by anotherDan

[Cynic]

working on my end of the discussion

I was gonna try to get the graffiti off the walls.... someone painted "Wright sucks" there in a solemn font, but I think I'll just leave it there.

To further define my original post, which seemed clear enough to me, and still does, here's my idea for a thread:

Reading is good for learning. I'd like to propose a novel concept: read the article, and see if you can understand what the author is saying. Really. Then agree/disagree/discuss.

I'll probably do what I damn well please.

[Cynic]

Great article. Is there something controversial about it?

"I punish my body and enslave it;" writes Paul, "so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified" 1 Corinthians 9:27.

A spirituality that does not contain at least the possibility of such an attitude stands under the warning that, though professing Christianity, it may in fact have embraced some form of paganism.

(This verse obviously contradicts Calvinist eternal security)

Reformed theology does not proclaim "eternal security" for those who have in some sense made a positive decision about Christ. It holds that those who are really elect will persevere unto the end. It also recognizes that some in the visible church who are professing believers will fall away.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Cynic

[another spot]

“To further define my original post, which seemed clear enough to me, and still does, here's my idea for a thread:

Reading is good for learning. I'd like to propose a novel concept: read the article, and see if you can understand what the author is saying. Really. Then agree/disagree/discuss.”—Dan

To me your comments reflect a chastisement for not understanding what you wanted, which as far as I am concerned, you did not in fact make clear in the beginning. The use of the phrase “novel concept” reflects you don’t think the above posters understand that idea. You further imply no one understood the article, and possibly not capable “see if you can understand. Really.” In general, your comments communicate to me you don’t think we’re too bright.

You are of course entitled to your opinions of us, but I respectfully disagree. I am personally quite capable of conversation on most any intellectual level you’d care to dish out. Under the circumstances, I will not be participating in this particular one any further.

[Cynic]

another spot,

I'm confident I was the sole target of anotherDan's comments to which you took offense.

I think the information, links, and customary identifier (i.e. "New Perspective on Paul") I have already posted should be sufficient to provide GSC readers with cause for caution, material for reading, and a phrase to use in search engines, if they want to know more about N. T. Wright and some of the doctrinal issues associated with him.

As for this thread, I make no promises of course, but I now intend to leave anotherDan to a utopia of open-field running, tip-toeing through the tulips, freedom from discomforting information upsetting his plans for a thread -- whatever he might want to call it.

[Sunesis]

Cynic, I've never heard of this Wright person. This one article I thought made some good points. I'd really like to hear your take and this new NPP perspective, I've never heard of it. What are they saying?

[wrdsandwrks]

Reformed theology does not proclaim "eternal security" for those who have in some sense made a positive decision about Christ. It holds that those who are really elect will persevere unto the end. It also recognizes that some in the visible church who are professing believers will fall away.

Thanks for that clarification Cynic. I am trying to understand the nuances of Calvinism vs Arminianism and I'm sure I don't have a handle on it. But in the interest of disclosure, I would have to identify myself at this point with the Arminians.

To document that Cynic is correct, here is part of the wikipedia entry on TULIP:

Perseverance of the saints (The "P" in the TULIP of Calvinism)

Also called the "preservation of the saints" or "eternal security," the fifth point teaches that, since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by human will or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return. This is slightly different from the "once saved, always saved" view prevalent in some evangelical churches in which, despite apostasy or unrepentant and habitual sin, the individual is truly saved if he or she had truly accepted Christ in the past; in traditional Calvinist teaching, apostasy by such a person may be proof that they never were saved.

Edited to add the following to clarify (not really possible) what Calvinism vs Arminianism is about:

(Dan, apologies if this is off topic, but somehow I think it relates to the N.T. Wright controversy, but I could be wrong)

Arminianism from Wikipedia:

Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought in Protestant Christian theology founded by the Dutch theologian Jacob Hermann, who was best known by the Latin form of his name, Jacobus Arminius. Its acceptance stretches through much of mainstream Protestantism. Due to the influence of John Wesley, Arminianism is perhaps most prominent in the Methodist movement.

Within the broad scope of church history, Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines in common. Nonetheless, they are often viewed as archrivals within Evangelicalism because of their disagreement over the doctrines of predestination and salvation.

Arminianism holds to the following tenets:

Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation

Salvation is possible by grace alone

Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation

God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus

Jesus' atonement was for all people

God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe

Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

Edited September 19, 2007 by wrdsandwrks

[Cynic]

Cynic, I've never heard of this Wright person. This one article I thought made some good points. I'd really like to hear your take and this new NPP perspective, I've never heard of it. What are they saying?

Sunesis,

Even some of Wright’s critics find parts of Wright impressive. Among several significant problems with Wright, however, is his recasting of justification.

I cannot take time to attempt my own critique of Wright and/or other NPP figures, but refer you to some material which can give you some feel for the basis of the NPP controversy.

At http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=240 there are links to five short articles concerning justification, the New Perspective(s) on Paul, and another movement called the “Federal Vision.”

The content of two of the articles seems especially well-directed for understanding the doctrine of justification and the way in which NPP teachings are at variance with it:

1. "Justification: What the Debate is All About," by David VanDrunen, contains a short overview of justification. (I particularly recommend attentiveness to concept of imputation and how the active obedience of Christ relates to the Christian believer's justification.)

( http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=476 )

2. "Getting the Gospel Right," by Cornelius Venema, has some statements about the doctrine of justification, and also contains a short critique of differences between NPP teachings and that doctrine.

( http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=475 )

_______

"Consequently, the Reformers emphasized that the righteousness by which believers are justified is not a personal or inherent righteousness, but an 'alien' and 'imputed' righteousness (iustitia aliena et imputata). The believer's justification rests upon the righteousness of someone else, namely, Jesus Christ. By means of his obedient life, suffering, death, and resurrection, Christ met all the obligations of the law and secured the justification of his people (Rom. 4:25)." - Cornelius Venema

Edited September 21, 2007 by Cynic

[Oakspear]

Bramble:

Doubtless the author knows little and cares less what modern pagans believe and sees the world through a Christian lens. That's his privelege, right or wrong. What he's contrasting Christianity with is, including his assertion that charity was unlnown among pagans, Roman state paganism.

Just as mainstream Christianity is the 800 pound gorilla in the room of our culture, "official" Roman paganism was in 1st century culture. Just as modern pagans in the U.S. have to contend with the assumption that everybody's a Christian, Christians in Corinth had to contend with the expectation that everybody would conform to to pagan customs.

In the context, his comments make sense, even his ridiculous assertion that religions that predated Abraham were a parody, weak or otherwise of a relatively new faith.

[Abigail]

Hi Dan. Thought I would take a couple bites at this. It is a lengthy article and I am not certain how far I will get with it.

The author wrote:

Jewish monotheism in this period was not a speculative doctrine about the inner being of the one true god.5 It was the polemical belief that there was only one god, the creator of the whole world, and that all other gods were simply idols, human inventions with possible demonic associations.

I disagree with Wright's assessment here. While it is true Israel worshipped (in theory anyway) only one God, there is documentation in the O.T. that they also believed during variuos time periods, that some of the other Gods were equally real. They simply didn't worship those other God's - or more accurately, were not supposed to worship those other Gods - there were many times when they did in fact worship them.

The other option was of course to assimilate. Jews from that day to this have faced this possibility, and we may presume that then as now some would lose their identity completely, while others would find various compromise solutions. But at the heart of the whole issue we will always find the theological and ethical questions which serve as shorthand for these large socio-cultural issues.

From the time of the O.T. to this very day, Judaism has taken much wisdom from other cultures, including but not limited to, the advice Moses' father-in-law (who was not of Israel) gave to Moses. I think Judaism would not have evolved throughout the ages into the thing of beauty it still is today, without assimilating in those things from other cultures that were not contrary to its basic tenants.

But this credal statement by itself hardly addresses the situation on the street in Corinth, so he continues:

Well, though, there may be many so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth- just as there are many "gods" and many "lords"-. .. (v. 5).

The pagan pantheon is not irrelevant. It must be confronted. One cannot retreat from paganism, just as one must not assimilate. One must instead worship the true God, the one whom paganism parodies. This, I shall suggest, is in fact the heart of the whole argument. And for Paul this true God is revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.

OR, if Paul was well versed in Kabbalah, which I believe he was (though your average Jewish person of that time period would NOT have been) he was teaching them Kabbalah. In other words, all the Gods are but one God. We all see different aspects/characteristics of God, we call God by various names, we may even call God by many names, but in the end they are all but one God. This allows a form of assmilation and acceptence without requiring complete assimilation.

Paganism, at its heart, powerfully reinforced the boundaries of nation, family and tribe, of geography and gender, that crisscrossed the ancient world. It is a striking fact that, apart from within Judaism, we have little or no evidence in the ancient world of what we today call "charity"; there was no sense of obligation to the poor, except to the poor among one's own kin or among those who might be of political usefulness.

I think he makes some sweeping statements here. First, even Judaism had boundaries regarding nation, family, tribe, geography and gender. There were times when we see little evidence of charity within Judaim and there are times when we see the opposite. Likewise, we see (again going back to Moses) Zipporah and her family, who were not of Israel, taking Moses in as one of their own. I know there are other examples as well, where charity was bestowed on various members of Israel by people of other nations.

The redefined monotheism is expressed in the redefined celebratory meal, which is the true alternative to pagan celebrations

If I understand correctly what Wright is saying here and in the paragraphs preceeding this - the eucharist (wine and bread) of Christianity is to supplant and replace a pagan ritual? I guess I am confused by this, because I saw the eucharist as a "take off" on the Jewish rituals involving the bread and wine at the sabbath meal.

We must hammer out the whole Pauline world view, not just a few abstract theological issues, in terms of Paul's central redefinitions of Jewish monotheism and election by means of Christ and the Spirit. And we must remember as we do so that the point of monotheism and election in the first place was that it was the creator's answer to paganism. All of this results, I think, in four closely related agendas.

Again, I am not convinced. Judaism does not contain the notion of elect in the same sense Christianity does. Nor am I pursuaded that monotheism was the creator's answer to paganism. In fact, I find that entire statement sort of nonsensical.

First, the church must recapture the sense of celebration within the eucharist. At the risk of being thought (by dualists) to be sailing close to the wind of paganism, we must celebrate in bread and wine the true God of whom any corn-king or Bacchus is simply a parody. We must participate in the Messiah by feeding at his table and drinking his cup, aware that in doing so we are drawing upon his own risen life to sustain us in our own struggle against the powers of paganism. (Is it significant that the countries in which rationalistic Protestantism has made most advance have been those where overt paganism has given way, until recently, to Deism?) In the eucharist we not only remember a past event. We worship, and participate in the life of, the living god and lord revealed in the gospel.

I think in his explanation, Wright is doing exactly that which he claims to be speaking out against. The tradition of the bread and wine in origin was simply about thanksgiving to God. Yet Wright seems to be making more of it, spiritualizing it, for lack of a better term.

[Abigail]

Dan, do you think Wrigth is referring to paganism and we tend to think about it? Or do you think Wright equates the trinity with paganism?

[sky4it]

Abigail and Oakspear:

Abigail usaid: Again, I am not convinced. Judaism does not contain the notion of elect in the same sense Christianity does. Nor am I pursuaded that monotheism was the creator's answer to paganism. In fact, I find that entire statement sort of nonsensical.

Gee Abi, after that I am feeling like I am rather Jewish thanks,(LMAO) , you make me feel rather Jewish and proud of it. Interesting. Abi, that the 12 tribes when traced though history, they don't really know were they went. I am Norwegian, and as all Christians feel a certian sense of unity with Abraham. Not sure what u meant by the "monotheism" point, so why mention it. The trinity is fine by me , because it is still one God One Lord, as the Apostle Paul so eloquently said.

Anyway Abi your statement: Again, I am not convinced. Judaism does not contain the notion of elect in the same sense Christianity does.

Thanks. You are right, Jesus Christ the same today, yesterday and forever! An election word in the New T; will never translate to what Calvin said. Thanks.

And Abi: Do not dismiss yourself; u are an angel thanks

Oakspear: usaid:Just as mainstream Christianity is the 800 pound gorilla in the room of our culture, "official" Roman paganism was in 1st century culture.

Oak Really, I thought we were all just trying to be helpful! Oak does this mean I am not mainstream? Cause I never really thought TWI people were mainstream back when either. Well I like the idea of mainstream, it doesn't bug me if I am not. But for your info, I think your a nice guy Oak, and I mean it.

anyway thks Oak.

I don't dance often, seems that only Abi and Bramble can make me dance.

How do you know I am being honest about all this, well I have had a few whiskey's tonight, I mean they called Jesus a winebibber doesn't that mean I can have a few? I think so. That's all the proof ( the proof was 80/40 on the Jim Beam I drank) I think you need. I aint drunk but just want you to know I mean it. Thanks.

Edited September 22, 2007 by sky4it

[Belle]

What amuses me about all this - especially these "Christian scholars" is

1) they are very ill-informed about the very belief systems that they condemn and ridicule

2) they are on a mission to discredit said beliefs

3) they think the only "good" outcome would be a conversion to whatever it is that they, the scholar, believes

4) they aren't really open to discussion - their way is the only correct way

5) they teach that you're gonna die, go to hel1 or worse if you don't believe what he's telling you

These are particular quotes that are part of the reason for my observances above. I include them so that Dan knows I did, indeed, take the time to read what he posted and am speaking from an informed position.

What is more, Paul saw clearly that the cross, in achieving this, offers the most fundamental challenge to paganism at every level. This is, I believe, the real subtext of our present passage. Instead of asking "how far can we go?" in apparent assimilation to paganism, Paul shows a different agenda altogether.

Paganism, at its heart, powerfully reinforced the boundaries of nation, family and tribe, of geography and gender, that crisscrossed the ancient world. It is a striking fact that, apart from within Judaism, we have little or no evidence in the ancient world of what we today call "charity"; there was no sense of obligation to the poor, except to the poor among one's own kin or among those who might be of political usefulness.

Rather than simply sketch out a position which helps Christians to get round the problem of idol meat, Paul now goes boldly on to the attack. He puts at the center of the picture the true Christian eating and drinking, of which pagan feasting is a mere parody. This is, in fact, his regular critique of paganism. Avoiding pagan life styles by avoiding the raw material in which they deal is dualism; assimilating to those life styles is to abandon allegiance to the one God.

This celebration resembles pagan feasts simply in the way that the sun is like a lightbulb: the former is the reality of which the latter is a copy invented by humans.

And many from Pagan and Wicca viewpoints would say it's actually the other way around.

They are offering a direct challenge to paganism, based not on their own new-found religious self-assurance but on the revelation of the one god, one lord which they have discovered in the cross. They are doing what (I suggest) all Christian confrontation of paganism must do. Instead of either assimilating or retreating into a dualistic ghetto, the church must seek to build shrines for the true god on ground at present occupied by paganism. Only so can the dehumanizing and distorting power of paganism be broken, and replaced with the healing and restoring love of the creator and redeemer god.

And that, I suggest, is increasingly the concern of the church in the modern Western world. Those of us who cut our exegetical teeth on Galatians and Romans, dealing as they do with questions at issue between Christianity and Judaism, may now find ourselves invited to get to grips with those parts of the Pauline correspondence where the battle with paganism is more specifically joined. We must hammer out the whole Pauline world view...

Whereas, those they so disdain (Pagan/Jew/Wicca) tend to:

1) believe "to each his own", we're all on our own path and

2) blessings & light on you as you find your own way (no judgmentalism)

3) teaching the wisdom contributed by many wise men & women from many backgrounds, including Jesus and Christianity

4) teach peacefulness and doing no harm to anyone

5) teach freely sharing of your time, knowledge and resources - I, personally, think it just p1ss*s off "churches" because it doesn't go to one central location, like "Christian" religions require.

The above is easily found online. If you are genuinely interested and have the time to read up on how wrong this "Wright" guy is, I'll put more time into providing the information.