“If the earth is full of God’s glory, why is it also so full of pain and anguish and screaming and despair?
Isaiah has answers for all these questions, but not the sort of answers you can write on the back of a postcard. The present suffering of the world- about which the biblical writers knew every but as much as we do- never makes them falter in their claim that the created world really is the good creation of a good God. They live with the tension. And they don’t do it by imagining that the present created order is a shabby, second-rate kind of thing, perhaps (as in some kinds of Platonism) made by a shabby, second-rate sort of God. They do it by telling a story of what the one creator God has been doing to rescue his beautiful world and to put it to rights. And the story they tell indicates that the present world really is a signpost to a larger beauty, a deeper truth.” – N.T. Wright
Call it Protestantism. Call it Reformed Theology. Call it American Evangelicalism. Call it Calvinism. Call it Western Christianity. Call it whatever you want.
But this is the version of the Gospel I grew up with- I sinned, my sin needs punishment, God took the punishment on my behalf so that I can be saved.
Now, we can spin this version of the Biblical story in both directions in order to say that the ultimate point of being saved is_____ (fill in the blank), but that doesn’t change the fact that the point of the story is shaped around me and my salvation. From this flows anxieties about assurance, theological systems intended to speak to these anxieties by way of implementing a grace-works divide, and necessary depictions of Gods character and action needed to fit the punitive and penal form of such a Gospel.
But what if scripture is asking a very different question? What if in scripture the question surrounds the faithfulness of God rather than the individual? What if the central question we encounter is, how can we know God is faithful to who God has revealed Himself to be in name and action? In other words, how can we know that Jesus accomplished what He said He did “in the world”, which is liberating a world enslaved to the Powers of Sin and Death, a metaphor and an agency that allows us to give what is evil a face rather than making humanity the face of evil.
This is, I believe, what shapes the anxieties that we find in the lives of the Biblical authors, their audiences, and the characters contained within. What would happen if the Western Church decided to abandon its hyper focus on individual salvation and started to think bigger in terms of Gods saving work “in the world”. Would it heal divisions? Shape our hope differently? Shift the emphasis from us to them?
I genuinely believe this is the most crucial question concerning the familiar debates in the Western Church regarding “individual salvation”, something scripture never makes to be the main part of the storyline. A renewed creation is in fact just that- a renewed creation. Does this include individuals? Of course. But the questions and anxieties change when we set this in proper perspective, within the larger narrative of the Biblical story. It shifts our view from us as the central point to what God is doing in the world. It shifts our view from the future to the present. It shifts our view from faith as a necessary and defining doctrinal statement to faith as participation in what God is doing.
The ancients would never have questioned whether grace was a gift or whether faithfulness was necessary. Both were assumed by those formed by Law (Torah). The question for them was, rather, if this is who God said His name was by way of his acting in the world, how can we know this is true when the world appears to look the same as it was. If this is what Gods covenant promise said God would do, how can we trust this when reality looks different. This is a fundamentally different concern than “am I saved” in the modern sense of the question. Those asking this question in scripture were asking it because of what they had seen and heard regarding Gods name and work in the world. And in scripture they are asking it from two different directions- as those faithful to the Torah and as those standing outside of those boundary markers. What must I do to be saved is fundamentally attached to the question that would have been clear to anyone in the ancient world- the defining marks of loyalty to a patron god or ruler. This is what makes the revealed nature of Israel’s God in name and action so powerful- this is a God who came down the mountain to dwell with the creation, the God with us incarnated in flesh and blood, the God who breaks down boundary markers in order to demonstrate a name and action that is “for the world”. This is what gets missed when we make the Gospel all about individual salvation. The free invitation to individuals and communities and nations and collective parties to participate in the saving work of God is actually what flows from the salvation story.
Romans 7:7-20 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”a]” style=”font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;”>[a] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.b]” style=”font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;”>[b] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.”
I’ve been relatively quiet for a while on my continued journey through Paul’s letter to the Romans, mostly because I found that much of my study has been challenging and reforming old paradigms and belief systems as I go. Better to let it settle.
This is one learning that has been sticking with me however, relating to the above verse. It came from Jackson Wu’s wonderful book Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes: Honor and Shame in Paul’s Message and Mission. He tackles the confusing and much debated shift in chapter 7 from we to “I”, challenging common readings that attribute this passage to Pauls own confession and experience. To do so, Wu writes, is to lose site of the larger narrative concern Paul is painting and can lead us to hear Paul setting his Jewishness against his belief in Christ as well as feeding theologies such as the “total depravity” of the human race unnecessarily.
Wu sees the “I” as assuming the voice of Israel and maintaining the collective vision of Israel’s story. He writes, “Why does Paul use “I” to refer indirectly to Israel? How does the extended monologue of Romans 7:7-25 relate to the “you” and “we” of Romans 7:4-6? Paul is mindful not to give wrong impressions about fellow Jews. By speaking in the first person, he lumps himself with Israel, needing Christ’s redemption like all who come from Adam.”
This in effect has three primary implications-
Wu writes, “What gets lost amid the shuffle of proof texts supporting one view or another is the fact that “I” presents himself as sin’s victim, not merely a perpetrator of sin. He is deceived by sin. He has no ability to do the good he desires but is compelled to do what he hates.” To put it in other terms, Paul is not shaping some systematic doctrine regarding the depravity of the individual but rather articulating the story of Israel as a means of addressing the present Greek-Gentile-Jew divide within the Roman Churches in a world that shares their enslavement to the problem of capital letter Sin
It shifts our focus from placing humanity as the primary opposition to God, common with Reformed circles, and places the focus on the problem facing humanity in its divided state- capital letter Sin, which is itself the very expression and agency of Evil that stands opposed to the goodness of God and God’s creation. Wu writes, “Paul in effect puts sin on trial. ²³ Having upheld the rightness of the law, he now vindicates the “I,” who represents Israel in exile due to sin. Sin enslaves them just as Pharaoh did their ancestors. The prophets foretold a new exodus that would bring God’s righteousness. As with Pharaoh, God uses a sacrifice to condemn sin (Romans 8:3). This reflects a purpose of the Passover lamb—to “execute judgments on all the gods of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12; Numbers 33:4). Once sin is put to shame, the Spirit of Glory leads God’s children not back to Canaan but into a renewed world (Romans 8:9-30; 4:13). In short, Paul looks forward to the ultimate hope of the “I.”
It prevents us from equating flesh with the world as though this is the Evil we in the Spirit must oppose. In fact, a crucial part of Paul’s argument regarding the Law is that the Law reflects the inherent good that exists in a world enslaved to Evil. This is why God’s revealed nature/image comes by way of God’s action in the world and God’s call to the whole of humanity to recognize their true nature as image bearers for the sake of the world. This tendency within Reformed Theology to erase distinctions so as to reassert a theology of the total depravity of all humanity misses what Paul is doing in Romans in erasing boundaries for inclusion in the Kingdom of God. This is why the phrasing “all in Adam” runs into a wall with the phrasing “all in Christ”, and why some Christian Tradtions supply interpretative moves by interpreting the all differently. The problem is such a move undermines both the problem and the hopeful solution by applying one universally and one only partially. This collapses the necessary parallel, What Wu’s careful analysis does is reframe the “all” to describe two competing realities laying claim to the true identity of God, humanity and creation rather than allowing the I to turn humanity or the world into the necessary enemy of God. The Law is the expression of fundamental, rudimentary truths evident in the world that give definition to what is good and what is evil according to its potential to oppress and liberate. Adherence to the Law in a formative sense within the life of Israel is both to locate goodness in God and thus in God’s creation and to proclaim the hope that God’s faithfulness to this goodness in name and action brings to a world enslaved, a world that seems forever mired in oppressor-oppressed paradigms. For the I to locate this very tension within the story of Israel is to move towards Paul’s larger concern for healing the divide between Greek-Gentile-Jew in the Roman Church, a healing he locates within the hopeful expression of Christ as the fulfillment of Israel’s own story and the means by which we can trust that God is in fact faithful and true to the covenant promise to be and act for the sake of the world.
This quote stood out for me. I read it at the beginning of summer but it has been sticking with me. As it says, “how we look at other people also shows our standard of honor and shame”, and so many of the sins we wrestle with daily come down to this. How we look at others affects what we strive to protect in ourselves. How we see others is intimately related to how we desire others to see ourselves which is the basis of much sin. And sadly we too often use Traditon, customs and history to mask this fact as Christians.
“Paul’s words challenge us to examine our hearts to identify those whose opinions matter most to us. Who, with a single comment, can make or break our day? Who can most easily change our mind or crush our spirit? These questions reveal our motives and our moral compass. How we look at other people also shows our standard of honor and shame. Whom do we criticize or praise, and why? Shame is usually associated with noncon- formity, yet conformity also can be an expres- sion of sin. As long as we satisfy social expec- tations, we can handpick certain sins to con- demn while we ignore others. So long as we gather with people who agree with us, we can overlook our own vices. We face the subtle temptation to use tradition, custom, and his- tory to justify behaviors or attitudes as normal and right.
Community, denomination, and cul- ture mask our injustices and insecurities. We scarcely hear the voice of conviction amid the applause of a crowd. Those in the church might confuse social conformity and godly character. We secure good reputations by following social rules. At the same time, those norms can blind us to sin. No one is free from sin simply because other people do not know about it. Greeks boasted in wisdom, yet this is precisely why they excused prejudice to- ward “foolish barbarians.” ²⁰
As with wisdom, many of God’s gifts can become reasons for shame.”
– Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes: Honor and Shame in Paul’s Message and Mission (Jackson Wu)
Thought I would post a couple threads from one of my online groups where I was walking through Romans. Romans 10 in one thread and Romans and in the second Romans 3. In the Romans 10 discussion I am jumping off a statement regarding faith as best rendered faithfulness:
Excerpt 1
So what will really blow your mind is entertaining faith in its proper context as faithfulness or allegiance.
How does chapter 10 begin? “Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.”
So who is the audience? A majority if not all Gentile community divided over whether one needs to be a Jew in order to follow Christ. And the concern is if not, then what was the point of Isrsel. Some of the Gentiles this is addressed to have been degrading and looking down on Jews, others have used their insistence that they must become Jews to look down on those who are not doing so.
So this is primarily an appeal to the worth and privilege of the Jewish story, the story of Israel. It functions as a kind of apology for rumors caused by Pauls ministry that he has been degrading his own Jewish heritage. He wants to clear the air and demonstrate that he is not doing this. Quite the opposite. Here he is pointing out the zeal they have for their faith, and yet this zeal did not/does not have the knowledge of Christ as God’s righteouness, righteousness meaning the right ,making work of God. But they do have the Law, and Christ is the fulfillment of the Law.
A couple points there. One possible reference is to the unusual problem that Jews in general have been rejecting Paul’s Gospel. If this is the case then this is important because such rejection does not diminish them or their story in Paul’s eyes. Again, Paul is demonstrating the opposite based on his telling of the story of Israel and why it matters. A part of Paul’s larger point is those under the Law are bound by it, and those not under are not bound by it. But both must be true to that which gives conscious to their faith, or their faithfulness, meaning their participation in the saving work of God in Christ. This is the point of the Law bring written on the heart rather than stone, itself an OT reference.
Paul’s point is, if the Gentiles are not bound by the Law, meaning circumcision (so not the reformed idea of works of the Law), then Israel likewise can’t be held accountable for never having heard the Law of Jesus.
This is where Paul then goes on to say “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”
Christ comes “so that” everyone who believes can have righteousness, meaning participate in the right making work of the kingdom of God (so not the reformed idea of moral righteouness).
Here we come to a contrast- Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them”
Followed by a “but”: “But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”[b] (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”
So what is the contrast? If the focus is on the Jew-Gentile question of needing to become a Jew (under the Law) to follow Christ, then what this contrast is pointing out is boundary markers. What is the “these things” Moses is speaking about? Ritual Law (such as circumcision and sabbath keeping and sacrificial gift giving) and Torah (in a formative sense). These are the boundary markers. The contrast in righteousness by faith is, don’t say who ascends and who descends, rather the righteousness that is by faith says, “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart.” For the ancient hearer of this letter in Rome they would have been transported back to Sinai here. Only what Paul is doing is breaking down the boundary markers so as to say,
“Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him.”
Paul’s concern is for establishing the Gentile in Christ as one who is not under the Law, meaning they have not been circumcised. What is crucial to note here is that Paul, in the letter as a whole, is not diminishing the role of the Law nor the need for Jews to follow and abide by it. The Law is how they are formed by the Kingdom of God.
From this point Paul is connecting the hearing and believing passage, which comes in the form of a question (how) and a admonition (bring the good. news); “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]
Remember, this is speaking to Gentiles. What is the good news? That they are saved by faith. Why is this good news to Israel which, as Paul is about to show, resisted God’s hand (the story of Israel)?
Paul begins here with a statement- “Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself.” And he attaches this in the same way we see in the story of Elijah- a faithful remnant. Why is this good news. Paul goes on: “What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened.”
This leads to a repeat of the what then question.a second time: “Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!”
Now here is where it gets really good. “Because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.”
Who’s transgression? This is talking about the hardened, not the remnant. So what about the hardened? “If their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!”
So why is this good news? This goes back to a problem Paul has addressed earlier. There are circumcised who are not faithful and uncircumcised who are faithful. So where does this leave Israel and the Law? Why does the Law then matter at all? It matters because it tells the story of God’s faithfulness. That is the point of the remnant. And in God’s faithfulness hope comes to the whole of the world. Paul goes on to link himself with the hardened, saying he hopes his ministry makes more gentiles envious. This is one of the great reasons why Paul wrote the letter of Romans, is he is trying to sell his mission to Spain and create a great foundation to step off from in that endeavor within these Roman communities. They are the ones he is telling to send the good news. To whom? To the ones disparaging the Jews by saying the Law doesn’t matter and those disparaging the ones not under the Law by saying the Law does matter. Why? Because Paul wants that foundation to be strong and healed..
How much more will their (the Jews) inclusion bring. Paul concludes by saying “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved”
This is why this passage is not speaking of a spiritual Israel, but rather Israel itself. And I will add this. This is also why when it says “saved” it is not talking about Indivual salvation in the way we Protestants have been trained to think of it. It is talking about who and how one or a whole is made free to participate in the kingdom of God. This is why Paul’s ongoing appeal to faith as in “faithfulness” earlier is so important. Salvation is not indivual salvation but Gods faithfulness to the promise through the work of Jesus in and for the world, and what flows from this good news is, here in Romans, about the who and the how one can participate in the new reality Christ’s work brings about, which concerns the Jew-Gentile question directly. That is the primary concern of Paul’s unfolding argument in relationship to the Jew-Gentile question and the place/role of the Law (circumcision as a necessary boundary marker). If Israel stumbled and was hardened, then the fact that Gentiles not under the Law are following Jesus, which means faithful Gentiles participating in the Torah, which is fulfilled in Christ, is good news to the stumbling and hardened story of Israel because this means that unfaithful Israel under the Law can be saved by faith, meaning they can participate in the new reality Jesus brings about through faithfulness. They don’t stand condemned under the Law in terms of a broken covenant, they stand liberated in faith because of Jesus fulfilling the covnenant.
Excerpt 2
So, assuming you see the scripture he is referencing as Romans 3:23, if I point simply to the work of Beverly Gaventa, Michael Gorman, Scott McKnight, and Aaron Sherwood, all of whom penned important commentaries on Romans and who sit within different Tradtitions, and all who would strongly contest that verse saying anything about total depravity or a universal sinful nature, would you accept that as proof? I can add a bunch more to that mix.
First of all, the phrase “deserving death” is a theological imposition from the post being lobbied back on to Romans 3. If you follow Paul’s flow of argument in Romans he begins with the particular (speaking to a majority if not all Gentile community of Christ followers divided over whether one needs to become a Jew to follow Christ or not), and then moves to set it within the Genesis-Exodus story, thus bringing in a cosmic point of view. This is done to parallel the liberation of Israel with the liberation of the whole of creation in Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension.
This leads us to Romans 3 which, again, is speaking to a majority if not all Gentile community of Christ followers. The key emphasis? That division above. Beginning with 3:1
“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?”
Followed by this in verse 9, “What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage?”
So what’s between these two questions?
Paul’s use of the interlocutor (a fictional Jewish opponent to Paul’s claims about establishing the importance of the Jewish story in relationship to the Gospel coming to the Gentiles “apart from the Law”) raises objections. Some key points? The Law is not works in the Reformed sense but circumcision, and righteousness is not moral righteousness but rather referring to who and how one is able to participate in the Kingdom of God, meaning do they have to become Jewish or not. The natural objections of the interlocutor flow from the fact of the story of Israel apparently reflecting failure, so what then was the point of it. Why say it mattered.
What would be the advantage of a Gentile who becomes a Jew, meaning under the Law if there are circumcised people who are not faithful and uncircumcised who are faithful?
Here Paul answers his fictional opponents question of whether Israel is then meaningless and a failure with
“Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin”,
He fleshes out the story of Israel later to demonstrate why there is an advantage to being under the Law, but here he is telling the Gentile story in relationship to the Law. To make his point here Paul cites the OT to demonstrate a story of Israel being held accountable to their unfaithfulness, pointing out that “whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law.” Again, what’s in view here when it speaks of the Law? Circumcision and I would add Torah- the identifying markers. Later on he is going to fully flesh out that these markers still matter to Jews because they are expressions of their allegiance to the Kingdom of God and therefore relate to their conscious awareness of this faithfulness/allegiance. For Gentiles not under the Law it is not in the same way. Paul’s larger purpose then is collapsing the division this creates.
This is the point then of verse 20, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.”
Righteousness again is not moral righteousness but dealing with who and how one participates in the Kingdom of God. No one being made righteous is not a phrase that denotes salvation by works. It is about who and how one can participate in the Kingdom of God, meaning it is about boundary markers.
Now we come to the central issue leading to the division –
“21But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify”
To which Paul says, effectively collapsing the categories of the divisions, 22This righteousness is given through faith in h Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,“
Key interpretive issue here- does it read faithfulness to or faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Either way faith requires a proper recasting in terms of its force of meaning towards allegiance and obedience. For what it’s worth I think the general consensus is that it is referring to the faithfulness of Christ relating to Gods faithfulness to the promise.
Then we get to the pivotal moment: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
The actual phrasing is for all have sinned and “lack” the glory of God. Glory is a word that implies image and presence, meaning the true image. Meaning, just as Israel neglected their true vocation as image bearers so have the Gentiles. This is NOT making some statement about total depravity or suggesting that God needs to punish sin with death to satisfy His wrath. That’s not only a bad defintion of Gods wrath given the same community he is working to celebrate has been said to be a recipient of this wrath because of their participation in Sin, storing up the wrath aimed there for themselves, it makes no sense of Paul’s larger concern and argument. The emphasis here is on uniting Jew and Gentile in the story of Gods faithfulness as a matter of who and how one participates in the new reality Jesus has brought about (the new liberated creation). All have sinned and lack the glory of God is more of an invitation to faithful participation than a condemnation in this context, and the entire emphasis is not on a sin nature but a shared reality emphasized in verse 9 as “all under the power of sin.”
Here Paul adds, “All are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
What is the grace gift? The work of Jesus which is Gods faithfulness to the Covenant promise. And what is Paul emphasi,emphasizing as the good news of this gift? 26he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”
In other words, in line with his argument thus far it is “faithfulness” or allegiance to the Kingdom of God that breaks down boundaries to who and how one can participate in the new reality Christ brings about. As Paul is going to show, it is the story of Israel then that is good news to the gentiles and Vice versa.
“27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith.”
Why no boasting? Because anyone can freely participate on the basis of faithfulness. Does this diminish the Law? “Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”
Meaning that we don’t diminish those who are not under the Law and those who are under it should uphold it. Gemtiles do not need to become Jews to follow Christ, amd Jews do need to obey the Law to follow Christ because of the Law writte on the heart of all. What this means is that neither should ridicule or diminish the other on this basis, as all share the same reality of living in a creation enslaved to Sin.
As I had previously mentioned elsewhere in this space, I recently spent spent some serious time with Pauls letter to the Romans. Stephen Westrholms book Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans highlighted the importance of reading his letters in his world and not letting modern bias color how we hear the force of his ideas, arguments and concerns as necessarily foreign and somehow irrelevant to our ears today. As he says, we don’t necessarily have to share Pauls belief in God in order to see how his very real convictions challenged and shaped the very real convictions of his readers in revolutionary ways. Modern readers and academics, especially within the field of secular education have been prone to do his letters and life a dissivervice and get the content very much wrong because of a need to uphold modern presuppositions first and the force of Pauls letters second.
A couple quoted passages from the book:
Even casual readers of his letters sense that Paul was a man completely captivated by a particular way of looking at life; those who met him must have been similarly struck. Indeed, for many, Paul’s captivation proved contagious: the vision of life that Paul communicated gave new direction and significance to their lives as well. It provided them with a sense of what they should and should not do, and motivation for doing what (in the light of the vision) they were convinced was right and worthwhile. In the two millennia since then, Paul’s letters have played essentially the same role for millions of readers: they have proved to be a compelling, illuminating, and treasured guide to life.
Contemporary readers of Paul, however, soon encounter difficulties. Many do not share the assumptions that underlie Paul’s vision of life; and to make sense of his train of thought without grasping its premises is no easy matter. Scholars themselves do not always face up to the dilemma. Whatever their intentions, they foster only the parochial arrogance of the modern West if they convey just enough of Paul’s thinking (or that of any other ancient) to impress students with its “weirdness.” They achieve the same result if they avoid the “weird” and focus only on aspects of Paul’s thought related to current notions and concerns. Students, with their unchallenged modern perspective, then simply accept what suits their accustomed ways of thinking and reject the rest—hardly an educational experience! We have not understood Paul, nor can we judge him fairly, until we have grasped how what repels as well as what attracts us makes sense on his presuppositions. One need not, in the end, be convinced by Paul to comprehend him; one must, at least, see how others could find him convincing. Like all genuine encounters with foreign cultures and ways of thinking, such a stretching of our mental horizons will alert us to presuppositions of our own that we otherwise take for granted. – Stephen Westrholm (Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans)
Even casual readers of his letters sense that Paul was a man completely captivated by a particular way of looking at life; those who met him must have been similarly struck. Indeed, for many, Paul’s captivation proved contagious: the vision of life that Paul communicated gave new direction and significance to their lives as well. It provided them with a sense of what they should and should not do, and motivation for doing what (in the light of the vision) they were convinced was right and worthwhile. In the two millennia since then, Paul’s letters have played essentially the same role for millions of readers: they have proved to be a compelling, illuminating, and treasured guide to life.
Contemporary readers of Paul, however, soon encounter difficulties. Many do not share the assumptions that underlie Paul’s vision of life; and to make sense of his train of thought without grasping its premises is no easy matter. Scholars themselves do not always face up to the dilemma. Whatever their intentions, they foster only the parochial arrogance of the modern West if they convey just enough of Paul’s thinking (or that of any other ancient) to impress students with its “weirdness.” They achieve the same result if they avoid the “weird” and focus only on aspects of Paul’s thought related to current notions and concerns. Students, with their unchallenged modern perspective, then simply accept what suits their accustomed ways of thinking and reject the rest—hardly an educational experience! We have not understood Paul, nor can we judge him fairly, until we have grasped how what repels as well as what attracts us makes sense on his presuppositions. One need not, in the end, be convinced by Paul to comprehend him; one must, at least, see how others could find him convincing. Like all genuine encounters with foreign cultures and ways of thinking, such a stretching of our mental horizons will alert us to presuppositions of our own that we otherwise take for granted. – Stephen Westrholm (Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans)
,*A caveat given that I liked this quote but knowing in the current climate it could be misconstrued and coopted by political realities. The context of this quote is not addressing the abortion issue with its reference to the child. Rather it is using an extreme scenario (a gown child who is killed) to make a point about the natural existence of good and evil beyond moral evil in this world.
“The life of a child is good, a precious gift and cause for celebration. So, each in its own right, is the life of the great horned owl, the bay-breasted wood warbler, the great northern pike, and the yellow damselfish. That there are harlequin tuskfish and shingle-back skinks is good, whether or not humans are aware of their existence. Indeed, all that is, because it is and because it has a part in all-that-is, is good. Humans themselves are but a part of all-that-is, distinctive as each species is distinct, but too obviously related to the rest of creation to imagine that they alone give it meaning or worth. Like many another species, they are born, then sustained in early life by those to whom they owe their birth; they grow in stature and in knowledge; they learn to procure their livelihood; they love and are loved; they couple, reproduce, then care—at great sacrifice to themselves—for the new life with which they have been entrusted. We are but a part of this world. It is not of our design or making, nor are we the source of its goodness. For that we must look to the great Lover of life and beauty, who is eternal and good.
Yet children are murdered in this world. It does not follow that the cosmos is itself without value and indifferent to goodness; only that it has become the scene of much that is evil. The evil is real: neither good (like the life of a child) nor evil (like the murder of a child) exists only in human minds. Evil is that which resists and disrupts what is good. Yet evil is not, like good, eternal. By its very resistant, disruptive nature, evil is parasitic: it cannot exist apart from the good—to which it responds inappropriately. We live neither in a world to which we alone bring value, nor in one in which good and evil are coequal combatants. Our world is essentially and wonderfully good, but profoundly and horribly disturbed by things that ought never, and need never, have occurred.” – Stephen Westrholm (Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans)
Had a couple articles posted on the Fear of God website pondering Ukraine and Ireland as stories in conversation. Links to Part 1 amd Part 2 of the two Part column here:
Its been a while since I’ve blogged. Mostly found myself taking a needed break over the summer. Which doesn’t mean the absence of stories. Life continues to write itself, including a road trip through Oklahoma.
In any case I figured I would start to fill in the gaps with intention of getting back on the horse come fall, beginning with this short reflection I penned back on Canada Day:
I’ve been sitting with mixed feelings all day. It actually surprised me to experience just how visceral my reaction was to seeing Canadian flags flying around the city today. I’m having a hard time separating what it has tended to symbolize over the last couple years from what this day is supposed to mean. I am reminded that the landscape remains deeply divided, personally, politically, nationally, spiritually, and morally.
And yet, as I sit here in front of this image- a flag on my left, the canadian museum for human rights on my right, the grand symbolism of the Church looming across the river behind me, I am reminded that there is a truth that stands taller than our divide.
As these three things intersect in my own life- my faith in God, my place in society, my inherent vocation to bear the image of God in this world by attending to the margins that all three of these things can potentially create when neglcted and used wrongly- In each of these things I find a reflection of hope. In each of these things I see an equal need for healing and a renewed sense of calling to heed the needs of the oppressed, to champion the rights of others over our own, and to be what I would call more “christlike’, beginning with myself.
The more I read scripture the more evident it becomes that one of the primary expressions of Sin/sin is division. And one of the primary ministries of Christ is healing these divisions for the sake of a hurting world. The struggle is seeing this take shape in the here and now when such hopeful images seem disguised by the shadows of this present age. There is a glimpse of the sun though promising that it will return with a new day, even as it now begins to set if for a while.
Perhaps this is what Canada Day can celebrate and acknowledge. The idea that now, even as the shadows linger in the background, is precisely the time to get to work, to begin to reimagine our vocation and to find ways to be Christ to the world.
When I was asked to preach and given the parameters for what to preach on- our current series on “call” passages in the Bible- I initially found myself struggling to know where to start and how to narrow it down. So I decided simply to give some time to reflecting on what had been resonating with me at the time. That’s when I stumbled across some recent reading I had done in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. This had been an intentional exercise for me because this letter had played a formative role for me in my growing up years as I tried to figure out the Church and my place in it, and some unsettling of my spirit during the pandemic (admittedly giving me too much time for reflection) had led me to return to this letter in an effort to make sense of the Church and my place in it today.
The passage I settled on was 2:1-11 because this section carried particular relevance for me personally given that its words carried me through those early years into a greater participation within the church and a greater interest in my faith. For me this informed my call at the time to get baptized, to get more involved in service ministries within the church, and carried through some significant choices and transitions in my life.
Returning to these texts, the first time I’ve spent any real time with them in a long, long while, was helpful for me in terms of contrasting where my life is today and where my life was when these verses first came into my awareness. In some ways I haven’t grown up much at all. In other ways I find myself wrestling with very different questions. In many ways my early life reflected the life Paul is reminding the Philippians of, a time when a fresh encounter with Christ had led them to be zealous for their new found faith. Reading it today feels more in line with where Paul finds the community in the present- needing a reminder of the initial reason for their zealousness.
So here’s what I wanted to do. I want to walk through Phillipians 2:1-11 verse by verse paying specific attention to the ways revisiting it today has provided a fresh outlook. Transport it from the world of my younger self into the world of my… well, yes I’m old. And to help that process here is where I hope to ultimately land, just to help you track: 3 Big ideas
The call to think about Christ= this is the idea of having the same mind/attitude, which is a way of “thinking” about Christ, in a way that brings about participation.
The call to image Christ- this is the dual nature of the text in Christ being by nature God, or the true image of God, and us, by nature of Christ’s revealing work-literally rendered as Christ being glorified- being Gods image bearers. This is the call to participate as image bearers
The call to think and to image- or imagine- Christ together
To begin with some quick establishing of the context behind the letter:
Philippians is one of later letters of Paul. Evidence seems to be there that It was written in relationship with Timothy. It’s written from prison during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome as a friendship letter to those who Paul knows from planting his first church in Europe
The question of concern is not so much their suffering- although they are sharing in Paul’s suffering – but what to do with the legitimacy of Paul’s work, word and testimony as he is languishing in prison. The high view Paul has of this community in Phillipi seems clear as they continue to coexist in a Greco-Roman world, and much of their ability to think and to imagine together appears to flow from Paul’s own friendship with them.
It is written as an encouragement to the church at Philippi by reminding them of who Jesus is in the midst of a strong Greco-Roman culture, and to call them to persevere in the faith. Of particular concern is reminding them of how it is that Jesus is both God and man (with a concern for the process of divinization in the Greco-Roman world). The spiritual and material realities seem to collide here raising questions about God’s participation in the world, what this participation tells us about who God is, and how we are called to live in relationship to this God through our participation in what God is doing. Here is where Paul offers encouragment- from Prison- to say that if you knew the sort of joy that comes from participating in the way of Christ, the thing that built this community- then you know this joy now. So think on it and then imagine it together in the present, and then live it.
So lets get into the passage:
2:1-4 Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
2:1-4 in the original text is written as a single sentence meant to bring the Philippians towards a vision of unity- a unity they already have based on faithfulness to and participation in the call of Christ. Paul’s affirmation is simply this- faithfulness to this call promises to bring transformation.
Quickly to set the stage: The prayer that frames these opening words in 1:3-11 is that their love might continue to abound in “knowledge and depth of insight”
1:9 “And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.”
Paul then moves into a long statement about his situation in 1:12-29, which obviously they are familiar with and which they share in. If this is how God’s faithfulness is demonstrating itself in Pauls life, what does that mean for their shared call to live in the way of Christ? Where’s the hope? The expectation? Scholars also believe there were monetary concerns wrapped up in this as well. How often is this notion of call related back to discouragement over effectiveness and lack of resources? A lack of… (fill in the blank) reflects adversity, doubts, questions. And these look much different for me today than they did when I first encountered the passage. Back then I was full of the sort of optimism that comes from encountering Christ. Now identify more with the skeptical moments of wondering about God’s faithfulness. Chapter 1 ends with an emphasis on “faithful suffering, specific to Paul but playing out in any situation where living into this call faces such adversity by whatever it is.
“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” (1:27) “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.” (1:29)
Which leads to answering the question in the opening of chapter 2, “abound in knowledge and depth of insight” of what?
“If you have any encouragement from being united in Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy (master-student relationship) complete by being like minded…” (2:1-2)
The connection between knowledge and depth of insight carries over into being like-minded. Being like-minded in the list of descriptives he has just listed. The “if” of chapter 2:1 is not a statement of uncertainty, as though to ask it as a question- “if? you have any encouragement (consolation and comfort)”, he is speaking directly to their very real hopes and concerns that they had (past) surrounding their coming to follow Christ. He’s saying you did and because of that you “do” have encouragement, comfort (God’s ability to meet the struggles and suffering) , and common sharing, tenderness, compassion (translated mercy) from being united in Christ (shared call) therefore… make my joy complete by “thinking” on these things.
Think, like faith, carries an active force, as in wise behavior (phroneo). Being like minded connects us to the consecutive phrases “same love” and “one” in spirit (one souled is the literal translation) and purpose. Thinking about, allowing this to imagine what we know into the uncertainty of the present, and then letting it play out as a drama by way of our participation. This is what brings unity with Christ and unity with one another, shaping the call then to bring the hope of Christ into the world. Here we find a tension between knowing and doing, which I think shapes what it means to be called.
So what does this unity/friendship look like in action precisely? 2:3-4 “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit (something to be gained or emptied, a combination of the words emptying and the word for opinion and honor… hold onto that phrase), but in humility (also hold on to that word as it will be crucial to understanding how this letter translates in light of the larger socio-political reality) consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests (understanding, or to think about), but also to the interests (to understand, to think about) of others.”
This repeats the notion of “yourself” giving way to the betterment of others. Important to note Paul would have had a we rather than an I in view here.
Lynn Cohick in her commentary brings to light the social context of this idea to “consider others better then yourselves” (2:3). “In Philippi people stressed not your character, but was thought about your character. Perception is reality.” (share story about our time in Ukraine)
Also concerning the social context: I told you to hang on to that word humility. The Greek word for humility (tapeinophrosyne) is not found before the Christian era . It brings together the greek words for lowly and the verb to think, which is the same word Paul has already used. In fact it is used 10 times in Philippians. If we understand the term think to carry an active force, then what Paul is doing here is turning humility from a vice to a virtue. (Reference Humility song) This then prepares us to enter into the Christ hymn which presents Christ as the very embodiment of these things Paul has been talking about.
(2:5) “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus.”
The word Attitude is actually the word for “think” as well. To think in Christ is the literal rendering. In other words this is how Christ thinks, remembering the fellowship he has with Father and Spirit and the fellowship Christ establishes with us, calling us to then image this to the world by our fellowship with one another.
This signals what is called the Christ Hymn so called because of its poetry and its rhythms. It is broken into two halves- the incarnation and passion, and second the ascension and exaltation. The key for understanding the hymn, Cohick writes, “is to recognize our participation in christ.” The Hymn, then, puts front and center God’s plan to make participation in Christ possible.
(2:5) “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus… Who, being in very nature God” (2:6a)
Morphe (being in the nature of God) is a difficult word to narrow down. It’s the same word used in Greek in popular writings to describe what Moses saw at the burning bush. It can also carry the meaning of “essence”. A way of describing something indescribable using human language. Language that then translates in concrete active forms. It can also be described as imaging. Image of Christ, human vocation as image bearers.
“Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with god something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (2:6)
Now, if you are like me you’ve been conditioned to read this in the light of God’s being everything being contrasted with humanity being nothing. God made himself nothing. Stooped to the lowness of our level. That’s not quite the full inference here though.
“Something to be grasped” means he did not consider equality with God as something to be “used to his own advantage”. This relates directly to the emptying. The word grasp is only used one other place. The best way, cohick suggests, is to see it as meaning that Christ had something he chose not to use. God is not giving up his attributes but manifesting them. Activating them as the virtue of humility. In the emptying the creator-creation dynamic is being caught up into this similar imaging notion.
Similarly, often times when people read this passage there is a tendency to overemphasize the divine nature as something to be contrasted with the picture of the slave/servant. The contrast though is like God and like human, connecting the goodness of God with the goodness of God’s creation. The slave part is part of imaging the nature of God. Christ does not grasp, rather Christ humbles, making himself a slave to humility. In a sociopolitical context the free one becomes a slave for the sake of the other. Humility turns from a vice to a virtue. This would have been understood in the light of the Exodus narrative. Gods liberating act coincides with the call at Mt. Sinai to be Gods image bearers in the world given to those waiting at the bottom of the mountain who have been left wondering about God’s faithfulness now removed from the initial excitement of the liberating event. This begins a cycle of trading the true image for a lie, resulting in the call to remember, and then to live in the promise that God is making all things new by way of our continued participation. In Christ God demonstrates God’s own faithfuness to this end in taking human likeness and participating in the long obedience. This is the attitude we are to share, what we are to think on. When it comes to being called we are not comparing ourselves to one another, but to Jesus.
2:9-11 “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every other name., that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Jesus doesn’t become more or less of God, what Jesus is imaging, imagining for us, the very thing that is being glorified in verse 9-11, is the new life in Christ. The eventual raising up is contrasted with the humbling, also connecting our own imagined humility to the source of life itself. As the image of God is revealed in Christ we also find and discover the true nature of our humanity. And it is said to be “good”. Very good. We have traded our true image for a lie and Christ desires to reveal the truth of who we are and who God is in the call to be image bearers.
This picture of bowed knee and confessed fealty is not one of power and fear and control but of liberation and service and praise. Jesus gets the name Glory, which in its literal translation evokes being in the very nature or image of God. And that image is what we share as image bearers in the world. Yesterday I was listening to an interview with author and scientist Iain McGilchrist, about his new book The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World. Something that he had to say really struck me as quite profound. He said “Imagination is the only chance we have at reaching reality. Imagination contacts reality and brings it to us.”
We don’t’ work to get the new reality, we begin with the new reality by first remembering, thinking, and then allowing this act of imagination to inform the call to participate in the present. Which is precisely what the communion table is all about.
Mad God (Phil Tippett, 2022) This is madness on a whole other level. The metaphors are rich, and it’s hard not to see our present reality in the chaos. The animation, done using intricate and detailed stop motion, is simply otherworldly, which helps to transport us into its depraved world. Cycles loom large here, leaving one wondering whether there is any way to escape, any promise of liberation. Maps, bombs, surgeons and drones, they all intersect in the decent into the shadow world underneath. A film that will merit multiple watches to scratch the surface of its ideas, to be sure.
Lightyear (Angus Maclane, 2022) Throwback with some nice comedic notes, a grand dose of 80s/90s adventure film, and a tight script that, in my opinion, deftly manages a complex story by keeping its focus on the simple themes. It reminded me of watching those old Saturday morning cartoons, only with real cinematic scope (the film looks great on the big screen). It is unlikely this will be winning an Oscar, as one tends to expect from Pixar, but these are the sorts of offbeat stories that I could watch anytime and really love. Just keep in mind that if you are expecting Toy Story brand this will end up a little different than you expect.
The Righteous (Mark O’Brien, 2022) One of the stronger religious horror pieces in recent memory, and a really strong debut. The film takes a slow burn approach centred on lots of dialogue and heavy monologues. A haunting score, a moody black and white aesthetic, and embodied performances help to give it it’s shape admist some strong psychological undertones. At the heart of the film is a question of image- namely what is the true image of God, and subsequently what does this have to say about the way God relates to the world. It takes the question of comfort in religion and approaches it from a place of fear, exploring how it is that for some God remains an angry and vengeful figure. Exploring this leads us deeper into some unsettling questions regarding how this then shapes our relationship to the world around us at the same time, along with how it is that we see ourselves in relationship to our sins.
The film is low budget, but never in a way that takes away from the story. Perhaps the final act gets away from the Directors vision ever so slightly, but figuring out where to land with a story that trends towards the kind of horrors that we cannot see, God as much a reality as He is an idea here existing in the minds of our central players, is not necessarily an easy task, so that’s a small critique in an otherwise really strong effort.
Dual (Riley Stearns, 2022) An interesting hidden indie gem to consider from the first half of 2022. Really interesting dystopian premise- a woman finds out she’s dying, looks into present technological advancements that allow her to make a clone of herself before she dies in order to help her family grieve and alleviate some of the pain, and an unexpected turn of events lead to a complicated situation between her and her clone.
The film utilizes an intricate plot, but it does so without losing sight of the emotojnal current. I found it really engaging as it sinks further into the “complications”, probing deeper into the particularness of its humanity.
It’s unique and just different enough to set itself apart, but the mix of intricate composition and emotional concern is what elevates this one in its genre
Petite Maman (Celine Sciamma, 2022) It’s hard to find the words to describe just how beautiful and perfect this film is. So simple. So profound. Deeply human. The cast is small and the context extremely detailed and focused, but the depths it is able to mine from such a contained portrait is incredible. I don’t want to say too much to keep from the spoiling the story, but suffice to say it provides a family portrait made of deeply broken and flawed individuals who are also bursting full of beauty. Sadness is a word that emerges near the beginning and remerges near the end, but for as defining as the word is these characters are also not bound to it. In its own way this might also be one of the most uplifting and inspiring stories I’ve seen this year.
Elvis (Baz Luhrmann, 2022) Now that’s a summer movie. Big screen movie magic. I’m a big fan of the Directors previous works and they all feel like they were leading up to this. It hits the ground running and never let’s up. Its 2 hours and 40 minutes long and there is rarely a second where it lost me or left me disengaged. Worth the big screen and the audience. The film plays like an epic, telling an epic journey that touches on multiple points of significant American history. It does a great job too of helping us to visually see the connection between Elvis and the Black spirituals that influenced him. That whole subtext really carrys a lot of thematic weight.
If you are older and a fan of Elvis you gotta see it. If you’re younger and relatively unfamiliar with Elvis, you gotta see it. If you’re a fan of cinema and creative biopics, you gotta see it
Checkered Ninja (Thorbjorn Chirstofferson and Anders Matthesonm 2018) After a few years of seeing this title pop up here and there and dismissing it as a low budget, straight to DVD animated movie, I randomly decided to use a Hoopla credit after seeing it pop up in my recommendations and looking for animated film to occupy an early Saturday morning viewing.
Definitely not what I expected. A real delight. Decidedly more adult in nature, but in a way that would still work for a younger audience (just heed the language warning). It’s funny, meaningful and relatable as it navigates the specific challenge of occupying the bottom of the social latter in those early years at school.
The story itself has a natural progression to the development of its central tension (boy gets this ninja doll, ninja doll is occupied by a vengeful spirit, vengeful spirit helps boy with a school bully in exchange for the boy helping him deal with his problem), keeping it simple and direct. It reminds us that, even at a young age, finding freedom from our problems, from those who hurt us, often means learning how to let go of our need for vengeance. Where what is wrong is made right, addressing the oppressive force also includes demonstrating a different way. It’s a lovely message that would fit well alongside this years The Bad Guys. Definitely check this one out if you come across it
Cha Cha Real Smooth (Cooper Wraith, 2022) A feel good, ridiculously entertaining story from the mind of the equally wonderful Shithouse about love and life, growing up and growing older. And featuring really strong performances, honest human moments, and plenty of emotions that navigate the ups and downs of this particular group of individuals simply figuring stuff out as they go. Loved the generational element as well.
Honorable Mention: Bull (Paul Andrew Williams), a solid revenge drama with complicated family dynamics and mob subtext. Equally revenge driven is Fixed (Jex Alsop), featuring strong performances and a prison subtext. Peace By Chocolate (Jonathan Keijser), a lovely Canadian comedy drama about immigration. Jockey (Clint Bentley) is a quiet but rich drama about humans and horses, while RRR (S. Rajamoulie) is a loud, splashy entertaining Indian smorgasboard.
Books
The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness by Katherine Glieb Read this as part of my ongoing journey through Paul’s letter to the Romans. And it was phenomenal. It narrows in on Romans as narrative and frames the narrative around God’s righteousness, giving both definition and context to the biblical term lost to some of our modern debates within Protestantism.
Abrahams Silence: The Binding of Isaac, the Suffering of Job, and How To Talk Back to God by J. Richard Middleton Incredible and enlightening work that is steeped in research and exegesis of its three central texts. This is for anyone who has struggled with the binding of Isaac, but more so for anyone who simply needs permission to wrestle with and talk back to God. That God desires this and that it makes a difference appears profoundly evident in scripture itself.
The Meaning of Travel; Philosophers Abroad by Emily Thomas The book itself isn’t great, but it offers some great insights as it travels through the history of travel by way of the Philosophers .
The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe by Matthew Gabrielle and David M. Perry
What if Rome never fell. That’s the intriguing question behind this revisionist take on the Dark Ages. There is no shortage of material challenging common assumptions about what the Dark Ages was, including the tendency to write it as a global reality. This takes a unique approach to the same idea that the Dark Ages was actually a period of vibrancy and Reform by digging underneath and articulating some key stories that shed light on the surrounding empires and the way these empires battled to lay claim to the dominating narrative that could effectively place themselves at the center of the universe. Seeing how Rome persists through this and even thrives is part of seeing these narratives in relationship to one another as opposed to a rise and fall trajectory.
Music
Wrabel- These Words Are All For You Too Rich Songs wrapped up in even richer song writing. A brilliant album built on a soulful voice and colored with the gentle presence of the piano and acoustic guitar.
Brett Eldredge- Songs About You The opening track hits with a bang, but it’s the totality of this confident country album that really makes this worthwhile. Deeply confident and sure of what it wants to be, it navigates a journey of musical and lyrical exploration that develops and forms as it goes along
Mt. Joy- Orange Blood Energetic pop that makes for a perfect mood cleanser with its vibrant and fun vibes. Don’t mistake this for fluff though. The compositions leave plenty to appreciate and dissect on a musical level.
Maren Morris-Humble Quest Call it safe if you will, I call it comfortable in the best sense of the word. There are more interesting efforts by Mprris (see the highwaywomen) but I’m here this understated record asking the usual honest questions she is known for.
Havelin- Alright, Alright, Okay An album deeply immersed in the notion of change and acceptance of this change. As such 8t floats through some basic and practical points of the human experience with some beautiful melodies and nice musical hooks. Its mostly low key, although the opening track definitely offers some get up and move vibes.
Honorable Mentions: VanceJoy-In Our Own Sweet Time Alice Merton- S.I.D.E.S MaverickCityMusic-Kingdom Book One
Podcasts/Other
Vox: episodes 354, 355, and 357 (Image Part Nine: Works with Dr Timothy Gombis; The Jewishness of the Gospel with Dr, Jen Rosner; Light Part One: Bearer of the Name) The Vox Podcast is always great, but this handful of Episodes in June was worth highlighting as they transition from one series to another. Rosners work on the Jewishness of the bible and her journey as as a Jewish Christian is really worthwhile.
Biblical World: Episode 49 (How Did Biblical Writers Access the Past With Daniel Ploske) Fascinating look into the nature of archaeology and its relationship to understanding the Biblical World.
The C.S. Lewis Podcast: Episodes 59, 60, 61 (Myth Become Fact; The Grand Miracle; Is Theism Important) This is led by Alister McGrath who wrote one of the seminal biographies on Lewis. These Episodes are dealing with external articles and works outside of his familiar books
Song Explorer: Episode 247 (Maren Morris- Humble Quest) Really enjoyed this peek behind the curtain with Morris and her reflections on the difficult nature of humility as a practice and a Virtue
The Book Review: Episode 404 (Sensing the World Anew Through Other Species) Encouraged me to pick up the book by Ed Yong, An Immense World. Described as an antidote to all the terrible things going on right now,
The Evolving Faith Podcast: Episodes 26, 27, 28, 29 (The Geography of God, The Power in the Story, Let God Love You, Remember the Refrain) Took me to church and revitalized my soul. Three great talks from different noted speakers on faith, scripture and life
Unbelievable Podcast: Episode 866 (Rowan Williams and Paul Kingsnorth- Conversion, Culture and the Cross) I’m a big fan of Kingsnorth and Williams. I always had a sense that Christianity could make a lot of sense of Kingsnorths journey, and his recent conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy set in conversation with Orthdox Priest Rowan Williams was lovely.
Regent College Podcast: Episode 211 (Metaphor, Poetry, and Maternal Imagery with Dr Beth Stovell) A timely word reminding me about all the feminine Imagery in scripture and how God is not a gender
Ask N.T. Wright Anything Podcast: Episode 125 (Medieval Questions and the Subject of Galatians) Wrights recent Galatians commentary functions as a kind of perfect summation of his larger body of work, and is extremely accessible. This talk does a wonderful job at setting a necessary foundation for entering into that journey, unfolding the power of the biblical story in its world
The Fear of God: Episode 328 (Leap of Faith: William Friedkin On the Exorcist) An emotional and rich Episode talking about this documentary on the Exorcist and some connected themes about loneliness, finding awe in this world, and the place of faith
On Script: Episode 226, 226 (Aaron Sherwood on Romans; Enoch Okode on Christ and the Gift Giver in Romans) Since I’ve been working my way through Romans this added a couple more to my list
The Stories of my Life 