I have voiced some reservations in a couple of recent posts about the appropriateness of modelling the life and mission of the church on the form of discipleship found in the Gospels (see ‘Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, and the future of the church in Europe’ and ‘We have to go back, but not to square one’).
There is a fully understandable desire abroad - as a reaction against big church, as a reaction to the distintegation of the Christendom mentality - to recover the immediacy and humanity manifested in the community of followers that Jesus gathered around himself. Sometimes this is expressed as a strong preference for this model of radical, itinerant, liminal community against the seemingly more institutional form of the Pauline churches.
But what does following Jesus actually look like? What we find when we examine discipleship in the Gospels (we’ll look at Mark below) is that it is a calling and way of life specifically associated i) with the eschatological announcement about the impending action of God in Israel, and ii) with the formation of a group that would have to live the story of the Son of man in Jesus’ slipstream, that would have to follow him down the narrow and dangerous path leading to vindication, to the giving of kingdom to the Son of man and to the community that remained loyal to the new covenant in the face of Jewish apostasy and extreme pagan hostility.
I don’t see how this can be made in any simple sense normative for Christ communities today, except perhaps, analogically, in situations where believers face similar violent opposition. We are not called out of the people of God for the sake of a programmatic campaign of preaching to that people that God is about to act as judge and deliverer. We do not expect to be dragged before ecclesiastical and civil authorities to be arraigned for heresy and sedition. So does it make sense to model ourselves principally on the community of Jesus’ followers?
It could be argued, of course, that with the collapse of Christendom (if we accept that premise) we are again in a position (analogically) to announce to the whole creation that God is doing something remarkable in the midst of his people so that his name may be hallowed, and that we should expect as a result to be dragged before ecclesiastical and civil authorities, because we have come to exist as a challenge to the established order of things. If we can genuinely rediscover this sort of radicalism in response to the contemporary crisis of Western church and culture, then perhaps Alan Hirsch has a lot to teach us. That certainly needs thinking about.
The radical Jesus movement of the first century was shaped by the need to announce a profoundly disturbing good news to a world that was quite prepared to kill in order to protect itself. If we come to that point again, then by all means let us model ourselves on the disciples of Jesus. In the meantime, it seems to me that the ‘new creation’ motif best captures the vocation of the people of God. This is not to say that we have nothing to learn from Jesus, that his story is not critical for our self-understanding, that we do not have an announcement to make, or that we will not face opposition. But I do think it is going to be difficult to discover the fulness of God’s purposes for his people in the Gospel story, which is why we have the rest of the New Testament and the Old Testament before it. It remains a crucial part of our story, but it is not the whole story.
So I would suggest that the following synopsis of the material in Mark’s Gospel that relates to discipleship demonstrates clearly enough that it was a vocation governed by two fundamental responsibilities. The first was to continue the very specific work of announcing to Israel that YHWH was about to act decisively as judge and saviour, an announcement that was backed up by healings and the casting out of demons, and which, I think, from Jesus’ point of view was ultimately fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.
The second was to overcome as a community the intense opposition that they will encounter as this announcement is made first to Israel and then to the pagan world so that the people of God would have a future. The disciples are the bearers of the DNA of the future people of God, but their life as disciples is shaped under the conditions of eschatological transition and that is what we see depicted in the Gospels. Both history and eschatology take us beyond this narrative (I would say beyond the vindication of the parousia), so the question must arise whether Jesus-discipleship remains normative for the people of God.
Obviously, this synopsis does not take the other Gospels into account, but I would not expect them to present a fundamentally different picture.
The disciples in Mark
Jesus’ work, as Mark tells the story, sets out from the announcement of the ‘gospel of God’ to Israel: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’ (Mk. 1:15). This ought to suggest that the call to discipleship has a specific temporal framework in view and a specific mission.
Jesus immediately calls the first disciples, four fishermen, who are told that they will become ‘fishers of men’ (1:17). They have been recruited to the task of announcing to Israel that the time is fulfilled, that God will come as king in the not-too-distant future, and that the right response to this expectation is to turn back and believe in the announcement.
Jesus explicitly takes the disciples with him for the purpose of preaching this ‘good news’ to Israel (1:38).
A tax collector is invited to follow him; he responds immediately (2:14).
People ask the disciples questions about their rabbi’s eccentric behaviour, though Jesus doesn’t give them a chance to answer (2:16-17).
The disciples show culpable disregard for the Sabbath laws by plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath (2:23).
Jesus takes his disciples with him to the sea of Galilee and instructed them to get a boat ready in case he was crushed by the crowds (3:7-10).
He chooses twelve from the disciples, who will also be called apostles, who will be with him, whom he will send out to preach the same good news to Israel, and who will have authority to cast out demons (3:13-15).
He explains the parables privately to the disciples, because, as Isaiah understood, Israel invariably fails to grasp the significance of what is happening. The disciples have been let in on the secret that the kingdom of God is about to come, that God is about to act in Israel to overturn the present state of affairs (4:10-12, 33-34). Jesus is anxious that they should properly understand this and behave accordingly (4:24).
When Jesus calms the storm on the sea (4:35-41), the disciples gain a glimpse of how Jesus was playing the role of YHWH who delivers his sinful people from their distress, who restores them when they are scattered amongst the nations (cf. Psalm 107, especially verses 28-29).
The disciples cannot tell Jesus who touched his cloak (5:31).
Jesus takes three of his disciples into the house with him when he revives the daughter of the synagogue ruler (5:37).
The disciples accompany him to his home town (6:1).
He sends out the twelve to call Israel to repentance, heal the sick and cast out demons as a sign that God was about the restore his people. If people refuse to hear the message, the disciples are to shake off the dust from their feet as a symbolic act of condemnation (6:7-13). They return and report everything that they had done and taught (6:30).
Jesus challenges the disciples to provide food for five thousand (6:37-38), and later for four thousand (8:2-5). This leads to a conversation in which he accuses them of missing the whole point of the feeding incidents - perhaps something along the lines of: it is not the teaching of the Pharisees or the power of Herod that will save Israel (8:14-21).
The disciples are terrified when they see Jesus walking towards them on the water (6:49-50).
Some of the disciples don’t bother to wash their hands before eating in disregard of the traditions of the elders (7:2).
There is a crucial incident at Caesarea Philippi when Peter recognizes that Jesus is the Christ of God who will save Israel. In order to explain this, however, Jesus tells the story of the Son of man, who will be rejected by the rulers of Israel, be killed, will rise again, and will be vindicated when he comes to receive the kingdom from God. He also includes the disciples in this story: they will take up their cross, they will lose their lives for his sake, but they will be vindicated with him. All this will take place within the lifetime of some of the disciples (8:27-9:1).
Three of the disciples see Jesus transfigured on a mountain, and later discuss among themselves what the rising from the dead might mean. They ask Jesus why the scribes say that Elijah must come first (9:2-13). When they get back, they find that the rest of the disciples have been having a hard time casting out a demon from a boy. Jesus explains that ‘This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer’ (9:14-29).
Jesus again tells the disciples that the Son of man will be killed and after the third day will rise, but they don’t understand him (9:30-32).
The disciples argue about which of them is the greatest. Jesus tells them that the one who wishes to be first ‘must be last of all and servant of all’. The disciples will be received as though they are little children (9:33-35); and anyone who gives them water to drink (when they are imprisoned, for example) will be rewarded (9:41).
Jesus tells the disciples that ‘the one who is not against us is for us’ (9:40).
The disciples must preserve their ‘saltiness’ as agents of the gospel of God because Israel faces a judgment by fire, the judgment of gehenna (9:42-50).
The disciples get Jesus to explain his teaching about divorce (10:10-12).
They try to prevent people from bringing children to Jesus, which doesn’t go down too well (10:13).
A good man cannot follow Jesus because he is unwilling to leave his wealth behind. The disciples wonder whether any wealthy Jew will be delivered from the destruction of Israel. Jesus reassures Peter that the community that has left behind home and family for the sake of the gospel will be rewarded in the age to come (10:17-31). Again, a critical issue of discipleship centres on the difficult and costly journey that must be made from the present state of Israel under judgment to the coming time when the people are restored to wholeness.
Jesus repeats the point about his coming death and resurrection (10:32-34).
When two of the disciples ask to be granted seats either side of Jesus when the Son of man receives sovereignty from God, he asks them whether they are willing to drink the cup of suffering that he must drink or share in his baptism of suffering. He again tells them that greatness must be measured in terms of servanthood and reminds them that they are part of the story of the Son of man, who ‘came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’ (10:35-45).
Two of the disciples are sent to requisition a colt. The disciples then enter Jerusalem with Jesus (11:1-11).
The disciples overhear Jesus curse the fig tree. The next day they point out to him that it has withered, and Jesus teaches them about asking in faith; they should also forgive others when they pray (11:14, 20-25).
Coming out of the temple the disciples exclaim, ‘Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!’ Jesus takes this as an opportunity to tell them what they should expect to happen in the coming years as Israel descends into a chaos that will culminate in the war against Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. They face a period of extreme testing, but eventually they will be vindicated. They must be prepared and not be caught out by events (13:1-37).
The disciples eat the Passover meal with Jesus, which he reinterprets in terms of his own death and of the new covenant that will bind them to him throughout the coming time of suffering until the reign of God over his people is established (14:12-21).
The disciples struggle to stay awake in Gethsemane while Jesus prays; Peter lays into the servant of the high priest with his sword; the disciples all flee when Jesus is arrested; and Peter later betrays him as predicted (14:26-50, 66-72).
The women are there when Jesus dies and they are the only ones to visit the empty tomb (15:40-41; 16:1-8).
In the inauthentic ending to the Gospel Jesus appears to two of the disciples while they are walking in the country (16:12-13); and he sends the eleven out into the world to make the announcement about what God is doing for Israel to the whole creation. Those who believe and are baptized into this new community will be saved; those who reject the announcement will be condemned. Marvellous signs will ‘accompany those who believe’ (16:14-18).
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Andrew - Mark’s gospel seems to me to have a number of emphases, which lead me to different conclusions from you:
1. It is a declaration of who Jesus is (Lord over sickness, demons, nature and death and completer of Israel’s story)
2. This declaration is closely associated with the breaking-in of the kingdom of God, or ‘the age to come’ as described by Isaiah, on ‘this evil age’, by the Spirit - which would continue through the church after Jesus’s death and resurrection
3. Jesus calls to himself disciples who will radically give their lives to him (as he continued to do through the church in Acts, and does today)
4. It is a preparation for the disciples of how the world would receive his message (parable of the sower etc)
5. It is a precursor to Jesus’s death and resurrection, on which forthcoming event there is considerable focus, but added to which needs to be the events following - namely ascension and Spirit out-poured
All of this squarely places the gospel in a relevant frame for today. Mark provides a model for continuing discipleship - in eras of persecution or peace for the church - and the values disciples are to live by.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
I am not sure I totally understand your reasoning, but I would like to offer a few comments and ask a couple questions.
First, I see our call to be like Christ not necessarily his disciples. Not in the sense that we offer salvation through our blood or that we are the Word made flesh, but that we are called to bring the kingdom into our context. Christ came and announced the Kingdom of God into a particular community and much of His life was spent explaining what that meant (through teaching and actions). We have been given the same challenge through passages such as Matthew 28:19 or Mark 16:15. Therefore to be a discple of Jesus is enough, not because we act like all other who have been called to be his disciple, but because we act like Jesus.
Second, the call to announce the impending judgment and salvation of God is as relevant today as it was for the community of disciples. Even though we live this side of the tomb (and the destruction of the temple) God is still acting in judgment and salvation, and there is a final parousia still to be inacted (the method of this can be debated elsewhere). Therefore I find the ministry of Christ and his disciples to be very formative in this regard.
Third, are we not all the bearers of the DNA for the future people of God? Each successive generation of disciples faces its own opposition, rather it is intense opposition from outside or lethargic conviction on the inside. To be a disciple is to care for the future of the people of God. We join in a long line of disciples and if we truly understand our role we effect the next generations by what we teach and how we act. This idea might have been placed in the background for much of modernity as the focus became more about a personal relationship, but that does not mean it is no less true. So while yes we have been taken beyond this narrative through both history and eschatalogy, this narrative still can be found as useful in determining our teaching and action today.
OK, a few final questions: —What should be normative? Where would you propose we look for our examples? —The Gospel of Luke presents a community much less concerned about an imminent return of Christ and calls for much more in terms of being the community of Christ (loving each other, caring for the poor, etc.). How would you reconcile this Gospel with what you see in Mark?
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
The point I was trying to make in the post was that when Jesus announces the coming of the kingdom of God and gathers around himself a group of disciples, he does so in the context not merely of a ‘particular community’ but of a particular story. It is the story of Israel under judgment and facing political-religious meltdown. The good news that he announces to Israel under those conditions is that YHWH is about to act decisively to overthrow his enemies and rescue his people from destruction. That is Jesus’ ‘gospel’. But he takes the further step of forming around himself, under these particular eschatological conditions, the nucleus of renewed Israel. He creates a community that must continue the story: proclaim the good news to Israel and in the wider world, survive Israel’s crisis of judgment, and seed communities of believers across the Greek-Roman world which by their very existence will proclaim the fact that not Caesar but YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the God of the whole earth.
My argument is that Jesus forms a community of disciples for that particular historical and eschatological purpose and that we cannot simply take this as a universal model for being ‘Christian’. Discipleship in our context will have some things in common with discipleship in the Gospels, but it should also take account of two historical conditions. The first is that we have moved beyond the eschatological crisis for which Jesus prepared his disciples. The second is that the church in the West is facing a deepening crisis of irrelevance as the tide of Christendom withdraws. If discipleship today is to be effective it must be contextualized in the same way that it was in the Gospels: it must understand its place in the story.
I disagree that we are still waiting for the parousia, for reasons explained ad tedium elsewhere (see this recent comment, for example, and The Coming of the Son of Man). I do agree that it is the calling of the church to announce to the world a message of judgment and salvation, both at a personal level and at a societal level. But the storyline is still not exactly what it was two thousand years ago, and I don’t think that being like Jesus’ disciples is quite the right theological basis on which to respond to this challenge.
That’s fine. To my mind that gets the right sort of balance between historical meaning and contemporary relevance. I do not dismiss the relevance of the Gospel stories by any means. What I am concerned about here is the argument that we should take the early Jesus movement as a sufficient model for the missional church today. I think that it provides too narrow a basis for defining the calling of the church and I don’t think that the Bible leads us to that position.
So what would be normative? Good question. I think we have to ask ourselves fundamentally what it means to exist as God’s ‘new creation’, his renewed humanity, in the midst of the nations and cultures of the world. That is a story that goes all the way back to God’s seminal response to the persistent failure of human society to observe the terms and conditions of creation. Abraham’s family would be a ‘new creation’; they would recover the creational blessing of Genesis 1:28 and they would transmit that blessing to the world. The New Testament tells a critical chapter in that story, but it does not fundamentally alter the missional task: to live as God intended humanity to live, righteously, in relation to himself, to one another, and to the earth, as a sign to the world that he alone is God, there is no other.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
“What I am concerned about here is the argument that we should take the early Jesus movement as a sufficient model for the missional church today.”
I agree with this point if we are talking about a model like a blueprint — if we just follow all the instructions we will build the perfect structure. Of course we should take the narrative given to us and then adopt an expression that fits into our current context, and not just try to recreate a past expression in our current culture. As long as we look at culture through the lens of the Scripture and not look at Scripture through the lens of culture.
“I disagree that we are still waiting for the parousia, for reasons explained ad tedium elsewhere (see this recent comment, for example, and The Coming of the Son of Man).”
Being new to this conversation (and website), I am going to have to take some time to try and read up on what you mean by moving past eschatology, but I will ask a few questions in the mean time. Are you saying that along with us being new creations this is the new heavens and the new earth we find in Revelation and Isaiah? Or are you specifically talking against a pre-millenial style rapture? Do you see there still being an eschatological crisis, albeit a different one than faced by the first disciples of Christ? I will also order your book from Amazon and give it a try when it comes in.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
No, I mean more than that ‘we should take the narrative given to us and then adopt an expression that fits into our current context’. My argument is basically that the Jesus discipleship model provides us with the wrong overarching framework for our understanding of Christian praxis today. It is not by any means irrelevant, but it is contextualized at a certain point in the storyline, it is a response to a particular historical-eschatological state of affairs, which is not reproduced in our own context. So I think we need to define identity and praxis with reference not to the Gospel stories - or to the story of the early church, for that matter - but to the trajectory of the whole narrative.
It’s rather like Tom Wright’s five act play analogy. We’re are in the position of the actors who have to improvise the unwritten fifth act in a way that properly continues and completes the story from the preceding acts. If all we did was perform act three again, we would end up with a very unsatisfying narrative.
I would say that the new creation motif in Isaiah is basically a metaphor for the restoration of the people of God, who are called in Abraham to be an alternative humanity, to succeed at being creation when mankind as a whole had failed. Possibly, however, the metaphor presupposes an absolute expectation - that the whole of creation will be ontologically remade, which is the hope that I think is expressed at the end of Revelation. So the ultimate hope that we have is of a final justice, a remaking of heaven and earth, and the defeat of evil and death.
My argument in The Coming of the Son of Man and Re: Mission is that within that framing creational eschatology is a limited eschatology that has to do with the victory of the early church over its ‘enemies’: the story of the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven to receive a kingdom states the urgent hope that the disciples would not be overcome by persecution but would eventually, like the persistent widow in Jesus’ parable, be vindicated against their enemies. I think that the ‘rapture’ motif (basically 1 Thess. 4:16-17) forms part of that inner eschatological narrative and is therefore, from our point of view, a thing of the past.
The church may face similar eschatological crises today where its existence is threatened by an oppressive régime. I think the church in the West faces the crisis of the eschaton of Christendom, a crisis of irrelevance; and we are currently going through the ‘birthpangs’ of a ‘new age’, as a new paradigm takes shape. But the fundamental crisis to which we are called to respond is the crisis of creation, which takes us right back to Abraham. The problem is that the church has got stuck trying to re-enact the eschatological crisis of the early centuries and has missed the seminal missional task, which is to show the world how God intended his good creation to be.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
“So I think we need to define identity and praxis with reference not to the Gospel stories - or to the story of the early church, for that matter - but to the trajectory of the whole narrative.”
I am having trouble with this statement. I tried to take some time a read other dialogues on this site and I have begun to understand more of what you are saying (and have many of the same questions that have been asked there). But the point I keep coming back to is best stated in the above quote.
For me the whole trajectory of the narrative from Genesis forward is the Gospel story. We have no identity without it. We have no real mission other than proclaiming it. Proclaiming it may take many forms depending on the context, but to find a mission or identity outside of the Gospel story is in my mind pushing the envelope to far in an attempt to be relevant. Or an attempt to discard its authority (I do not think this is your purpose).
Scripture is the recorded accounts of God in action among His people and the world and that is not just remembering something about when it was written but it still effects us now. It is through the Scripture that the living, resurrected Christ intends to be with his people, here, now.
To write the story off as non-formative for us today or to state “basically that the Jesus discipleship model provides us with the wrong overarching framework for our understanding of Christian praxis today” is in my mind heading down a path that leads to some very bad theology.
Lastly, your book was delivered this morning so I will get to it shortly and maybe I will realize that my thoughts here have been wrong or overly critical.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Well, I am certainly arguing for a bit of a paradigm shift from an understanding that takes such concepts as gospel, salvation, justification, and mission as being directly and personally relevant to the modern believer to an understanding that takes them to be narratively located. This has to do, in my mind, basically with how we interpret scripture. Most of us (I include myself) have absorbed the former paradigm from the practical teaching ministry of the church, which in recent decades has been mostly interested in the spiritual well-being and final hope of the individual and which reads the Bible from that perspective. It seems to me, however, that the Bible actually asks to be read historically and from a corporate perspective: it is the story of a people which makes sense not only of those general concepts but also of such a central event as the death of Jesus within that narrative framework.
The question that interests me is whether the church as a whole, and not merely biblical scholarship, can define its identity and purpose without short-circuiting the narrative or allegorizing it or collapsing it into a set of universal principles or propositions that are simply there to be preached and believed. I agree that scripture still affects us now, but I think that to a large degree the modern evangelical mind has become captive to a severely reductionist reading of the Bible, for which a price is paid not merely in terms of exegesis but also in terms of self-understanding.
What happens when we relocate the diminished evangelical ‘gospel’ in the whole narrative of scripture? Well, I think it brings into focus for us the calling of a people to be God’s new creation and the manner in which that vocation was transformed through the critical events described in the New Testament. It is, however, not the gospel but the life of that people that is central to the missional purpose of God.
To give an analogy. A person may go through a traumatic experience - a life-threatening illness, for example, the loss of a loved one, or an encounter with extreme poverty. He is dramatically changed by the event - psychologically, spiritually; but his future life moves on from the experience itself; he remembers it, perhaps still has nightmares about it, but he does not have to stay in that experience in order to be a new person. Because of what happened, he feels that he has discovered his true identity and purpose in life, but the life-changing experience remains in the past and only really makes sense in that historical context. It does not have to be somehow universalized or mythologized in order to remain meaningful.
It is the same for the people of God. The family of Abraham was forced to go through a massive crisis of judgment and restoration that lasted centuries - arguably it ran from the exile, through the Maccabean revolt, the events of Jesus’ life, the destruction of Jerusalem and the conflict with Greek-Roman paganism. They survived only because Jesus faithfully and obediently opened an alternative path through his death and resurrection. That painful process changed them dramatically, but as a people they are more than Gospel story - they are the sum of the whole narrative
Feel free to complain if you don’t like the book.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Andrew,
Could you parse out the differences that you see between your understanding of narrative and a meta-narrative?
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
For me the primary issue is the literary one: How do we best give an account of the coherence of the biblical texts? ‘Narrative’ seems to me at least one of the most useful categories for answering that question, so we then ask: What sort of story is being told? Is it a single story? Many stories? And how does that narrative structure affect our understanding of key events and concepts such as the death of Jesus or ‘justification by faith’?
But then there are also questions about how we believe or live in relation to the narrative structure of scripture. I would say that people who have chosen, or been chosen, to be part of the ‘new creation’ that was established through the death and resurrection of Jesus have made the biblical narrative their own. They do so in repudiation of - or at least relativization of - other narratives.
Whether it helps to say that it is for us a metanarrative, however, I’m not so sure. What is a metanarrative? The biblical story does not purport to explain everything about the world - it is bound to coexist with other narratives. I don’t personally think that the goal of Christianity is to bring all of the earth under the lordship of Christ so that every narrative is eventually subsumed in the Christian metanarrative (see ‘Psalms 2 and 22 and the conversion of the whole world’). I think the basic missional task is to exist in the midst of the nations and cultures of the earth, which must entail a certain relativization or contextualization of our story. We are called to live faithfully according to our story, which in effect makes it absolute for us - it is a matter of corporate conviction. But we remain acutely conscious of the fact that we are culturally and intellectually marginalized by that commitment - well, at least, in Europe we are.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Andrew,
When I read your writing, the coherence of the biblical texts is not something that seems to seriously be questioned. You seem to suggest that there is a single story. Or said differently, you seem pretty sure that there is a “narrative structure to scripture” or a single “biblical narrative” that believers are part of.
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there is something troublesomely total about the way you talk about the “biblical narrative.” Or maybe it is how you present the “biblical narrative” as “absolute for us,” which is another way of saying there is no other narrative possibilities for believers. The way you talk about narrative makes me feel trapped.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Interesting comments.
It seems to me that a determined argument for coherence entails at least implicitly the recognition that the texts are ostensibly and perhaps really ‘incoherent’. I referred in my preceding comment to a story or stories.
I think the search for coherence, however, is not unwarranted and is arguably required by the centrality given to Jesus. What I am asking is how does he make sense of Israel’s story in the light of his vocation and the concrete historical circumstances that he faced. There are, of course, many ways to read the Gospel narratives, but this at least narrows the focus somewhat. If we assume that he was a real historical figure and if we accept that the New Testament provides us with a more or less reliable account of his significance, then there is every reason to think that he held a rather well defined and coherent view of what YHWH was doing through him for the sake of Israel.
In a sense, Jesus was ‘trapped’ in a particular reading of the scriptures, a particular understanding of the mind of God, a particular interpretation of the signs of the times. I would argue, indeed, that Jesus’ self-understanding and vocation remains highly restrictive in its application for the early church until the oppressor of the people of God, namely Rome, is defeated: the disciples are included in the particular story of the Son of man. This was not a time for reader-response theory.
But I would also say that with the idea of being new creation comes a whole set of new creative possibilities. I rather think that it is through the interplay between the coherent historical narrative and the fecund prophetic imagination that the church will rediscover its identity and vocation following the collapse of the Christendom paradigm.
We are both reacting against the reductionist modernist paradigm. You resist it by opening up the possibilities for meaning and interpretation, by advocating incoherence and a plurality of readings - which, ironically, is basically what we have always had in the Protestant tradition. I am more inclined to find the solution to the problem in an alternative narrative-historical hermeneutic, because I think that is the best way to preserve the ‘evangelical’ power of the narrative for mission and worship and community. But it may be that there is the potential for a rather powerful collaboration between those two approaches once they have been properly understood.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
It seems to me that a determined argument for coherence entails at least implicitly the recognition that the texts are ostensibly and perhaps really ‘incoherent’.
I’m sure that in many circumstances that may be the case. But I would add that "a determined argument for coherence" may also be predicated on a belief that coherence is found at some original source, some original narrative that present believers can tap into. For instance, you say: "What I am asking is how does he make sense of Israel’s story in the light of his vocation and the concrete historical circumstances that he faced."
Something bothers me. I think that it is the implicite presumption that it is even possible for you to understand how Jesus made "sense of Israel’s story in the light of his vocation.."
Am I understanding that right? Are you suggesting that how Jesus made sense of his situation can be searched out and discovered by us here in the present?
We are both reacting against the reductionist modernist paradigm. You resist it by opening up the possibilities for meaning and interpretation, by advocating incoherence and a plurality of readings - which, ironically, is basically what we have always had in the Protestant tradition. I am more inclined to find the solution to the problem in an alternative narrative-historical hermeneutic, because I think that is the best way to preserve the ‘evangelical’ power of the narrative for mission and worship and community. But it may be that there is the potential for a rather powerful collaboration between those two approaches once they have been properly understood.
I would agree with much or your reading of the situation. One major difference, I think, centers on your effort to find a "solution to the problem." I’m not so sure that there is a "solution to the problem" and I don’t presume that it is a problem that we humans have the capacity to solve, anyway. We just have different interpretations. Some of those interpretations we trust more than others.
Coherece certainly has its value. But maybe coherence isn’t something we search out and discover, maybe coherence is something we fashion out of the narrative materials at hand. And there is the big difference between our views. I don’t think that how Jesus made sense of his situation is available for us here in the present to search out and find.
.
Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Apologies again for my lack of proficiency in getting these postings made right the first time!
Chajc wrote:
“So I think we need to define identity and praxis with reference not to the Gospel stories - or to the story of the early church, for that matter - but to the trajectory of the whole narrative.”
Also…
“I am having trouble with this statement. I tried to take some time a read other dialogues on this site and I have begun to understand more of what you are saying (and have many of the same questions that have been asked there). But the point I keep coming back to is best stated in the above quote.”
This was the seminal comment in AP’s post that grabbed me as well….. I’m not sure either about making what amounts to a quantum leap from out of scripture and to some notional trajectory endpoint. Sure, God wants us to be sentient, thoughtful creatures. But our human history of really blowing it in this area and all the admonitions in scripture about departing from the essential messages contained therein likewise give me huge reservations about hypothesizing about such matters when I have yet to find - maybe it’s just me!! but I doubt it - a lack of relevance in the entirety of the bible to our circumstances today. RATHER THAN attempt to create a new eschatological paradigm, if you will, I think the purpose of these discussions is - I pray it is - to somehow glean insight from scripture with the help of man that ultimately MUST combine with and be fully confirmed with the Holy Spirit. The practice and functioning (praxis?) of the Church today is clearly dismal, to the point that I’m not sure referring to most of what we think of as “the Church” is even the Church. How do we confront this and what would Jesus have us do? The answer(s) lie from inspiration and teaching that comes directly from the bible, I’m certain.
Chajc wrote:
“For me the whole trajectory of the narrative from Genesis forward is the Gospel story. We have no identity without it. We have no real mission other than proclaiming it. Proclaiming it may take many forms depending on the context, but to find a mission or identity outside of the Gospel story is in my mind pushing the envelope to far in an attempt to be relevant. Or an attempt to discard its authority (I do not think this is your purpose).”
This is a very thoughtful summation, IMHO. Asserting that, essentially, the entirety of the Bible is the Gospel story is not a stretch, though it required a bit of personal (but inspired) license to do so. Getting to the place where the “trajectory of the whole narrative” lands outside the bible (the Gospel) somewhere gives me great pause. Could be like a SCUD missile approach to theology, if you excuse the analogy.
There surely is an answer to the issue of “what now?” for the Church. We need to find it.
Separately, the prophetic, eschatological words of Isaiah and Daniel and of course in 1 Thess are of an age yet to come, I believe. Perhaps I’m wrong? Alternative, inspired bible interpretation in this regard is something I also would like to learn of.
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
This will have to be a rather hasty response, I’m afraid.
It seems to me patently absurd to suppose that the whole of scripture can be adequately reduced to the dimensions of a single concept such as ‘gospel’. The paradox of modern evangelicalism’s high regard for scripture is that it has defended the truth and effectiveness of the ‘gospel’ at the expense of the concrete relevance of the Bible as a whole. That is why in popular books and sermons scripture is routinely filtered, screened, distorted, and allegorized in the interests of preserving a marketable ‘gospel’.
But the main point I would make in response to your argument is that ‘gospel’ in scripture is not a univocal, universal religious principle. The ‘good news’ is always a contextualized announcement about something God has done, is doing, or is about to do. It is contextualized historically and it is contextualized narratively. Jesus’ ‘gospel’ is not a simple message of personal salvation: it is the announcement to Israel that YHWH is about to act sovereignly to eradicate unrighteousness, overthrow Israel’s enemies, and restore his people to wholeness. Paul’s ‘gospel’ looks back to the resurrection: it is the announcement that YHWH has in effect done this for Israel in Jesus. But it also looks forward to the inclusion of Gentiles in this redeemed people: the good news is that the sovereignty of God over the whole earth is being demonstrated through the participation of the nations in the covenant.
The good news in the New Testament, therefore, is first of all historical, corporate and political: it has to do with the experience and expectations of a people under a particular set of historical circumstances. The personal hope must be understood within that framing narrative, and the framing narrative cannot be properly understood without some sense of how the biblical story as a whole both precedes and follows the critical events of the New Testament.
The modern evangelical paradigm has been highly successful, and I don’t want to minimize the importance of that; but it is now failing. It will not last forever. My view is that any emerging paradigm will have to take full account of the narrative-historical structure of scripture if it is to provide a robust enough platform to support the post-modern, post-Christendom mission of the church. If we are too timid to venture beyond the familiar and safe boundaries of the modern gospel of personal salvation, I think we will fall some way short of the missional intention of God for his people.
Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
I hope this posting is formatted properly. Andrew, thanks for scribing your additional thoughts. Your insights are appreciated. I’m not sure I fully understand them, but hopefully I will with another reading or two, and with the help of any further comments you might provide.
I would point out that the excerpted (from your last post) opening paragraph is somewhat strident; particularly the first sentence. I say this because the opinion Chajc expressed by way of referencing the entirety of the Bible as "the Gospel" is not too difficult to grasp from an academic standpoint… However you expand or pare back the meaning of the word "Gospel," simply perceiving the entire Word of God to be "the good news" is a workable thesis and not too much of a stretch, even if it is intended to be - and I think it is - heuristic.
So I’m not so sure characterizing this as patently absurd is really appropriate, or useful. The bigger contrast, though, is that in the next breath (metaphorically speaking), after several paragraphs, you conclude:
Now seriously, would you not agree that your proposition stated above requires a MUCH greater leap of faith than supposing that the entirety of the Bible could be characterized as "the good news???" I think so.
Having made that point, however ineffectually, I really am not looking to pick a fight. That just jumped way out at me.
I have always believed that the actual "Gospel" that Jesus preached was the Kingdom of Heaven. Not salvation. Salvation is just part of the package, so to speak. Jesus preached the KINGDOM.
Servanthood, all of the parables, Paul’s emphasis on the resurrection, etc. are also very important NT teachings. They relate directly to the Kingdom of God.
Andrew, this seems so oblique. The good news in the NT is NOT first of all historical, corporate and political. The good news is, FIRST OF ALL, what it is! Please don’t think I don’t perceive where you were headed by making this statement, which is towards your broader argument about why context matters. But you seem to be wrapped up more in the context than in the actual, literal message. This permits you to take the quantum leap to expressing the need for an "emerging paradigm" to achieve God’s "missional intent" for his people.
My thought here is that the Word is incorruptible. Scripture (somebody else argued against this, I think, in another thread) does actually interpret scripture (this is a separate discourse). Jesus was the Word. The Word became flesh… While understanding context can be illuminating, it certainly doesn’t occupy the paramount place of importance that you seem to want to give to it. It’s kind of like saying that you really can’t fully or meaningfully grasp how to fix a transmission if you don’t understand the "framing narrative" of how the transmission was invented and what the circumstances were surrounding the writing of the shop manual. This over-academized methodology is why people don’t have FAITH; they need too much information to just jump into a relationship with God.
The Church is surely sick and in need of God alone (that’s a Jason Upton lyric). A large part of what has made it sick is all the pagan rituality and "christian" religiousity that gets in between God and man. I submit that focusing intently on the context - some if not most of which is surely hypothetical since it goes back 2000+ years - is a great ditch to fall into.
To the degree that there is a "modern evangelical paradigm," I wouldMy view is that any emerging paradigm will have to take full account of the narrative-historical structure of scripture if it is to provide a robust enough platform to support the post-modern, post-Christendom mission of the church. agree that it is failing. I’m not sure what you mean by that term, but my immediate sense of what that might mean leads me to agree with your statement.
This is such a dense statement and if I interpret it literally I’m lost.
Let me ask this:
The Church. A new paradigm for Church. Breaking out of the clutches of religiousity and rituality. Establishing God’s will on earth, as it is in heaven. Overcoming the world. Is it not important enough merely to use whatever wisdom God, through his eternal grace, can provide to those who truly have a heart for Him to hopefully, through inspired thought or through the Holy Spirit (or both!), come up with a better way to be the Church? That’s my thesis, crudely stated, and I’m sticking with it!
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
It’s taken a while to respond, but here we go. Your posting is very nicely formatted; and sorry, I didn’t mean to be strident. Perhaps we should go back to Chajc’s statements:
He makes the same point in the comment below:
My argument is basically that the trajectory of the biblical narrative takes us through the Gospel story, so I would say that it lands us beyond it rather than outside it. That is the unavoidable consequence of a linear understanding of history.
From a narrative point of view, it is misleading to think that the Gospel story or the ‘gospel’ is the end-point or highest point of biblical revelation. Jesus’ gospel is an announcement to Israel about its immediate future. He is not simply saying to individuals who happen to be Jewish, ‘Repent and believe in me as your personal saviour.’ He is calling a faithful part of Israel to reconstitute itself around him in order that the people of God might escape the devastating ‘judgment’ of the Roman war and emerge transformed from the crisis, redefined by the new covenant in the Spirit. It is not generic humanity but ‘his people’ that he came to save from the consequences of their sins (Matt. 1:21).
This is what he has in mind when he announces the coming kingdom. So I’m afraid I still wish to maintain that the good news in the New Testament is first of all ‘historical, corporate and political’. It is historical in that it is addressed to Israel at a particular moment in its history; it is corporate in that it is an announcement regarding the fate of the nation; and it is political in that it has to do fundamentally with who rules over God’s people. By referring to that construction as an ‘emerging paradigm’ I do not mean that I have invented it solely for the sake of the enterprise of the current phenomenon which we call the ‘emerging church’. Rather I would argue that the current situation has allowed us to see more clearly the inherent historical, corporate and political shape of the gospel in the New Testament. This can be summed up in Jesus, certainly; but right now I think we need to un-sum it and grasp the narrative-historical dimensions of the New Testament texts. The Word became flesh but by that ‘incarnation’ the Word entered the particular narrative of God’s people - for example, as part of the story that John the Baptist told about the condemnation and salvation of Israel (Jn. 1:6-8; cf. Matt. 3:1-10 and parallels).
As for your transmission metaphor: I would argue that the ‘framing narrative’, if you like, is not the invention of the transmission but the rest of the vehicle. There is no point insisting on the efficacy and necessity of the transmission if the fuel tank is empty, the engine is broken, the differential has seized up, and someone has made off with the wheels. It’s no good taking the transmission out of the car and expecting it to transport us somewhere.
This is not a matter of an ‘over-academized methodology’: it is simply the story that the Bible tells. What I hear you advocating, indeed, is an over-simplified methodology which may have some immediate practical value but which fails adequately to represent the truth of scripture. It may be the case that the church suffers from an excess of religiosity and ritualism and that the invitation to a more authentic personal faith is urgently needed. But I do not think that the call to a renewal of personal faith is enough. Your objection to religiosity merely captures one aspect of the contemporary crisis - and one which probably now makes much more sense in the US than in Europe. But I would argue both on exegetical and missional grounds that this is constitutes a much too narrow basis for defining the gospel, which I think needs to be firmly located in an overarching biblical narrative about a people called to embody in its corporate life, in defiance of other narratives, actually and prophetically and in anticipation of God’s future, the renewal of creation.
Here again I strongly disagree: take the ‘good news’ out of the context and you risk seriously distorting it. These are not separable things: the gospel that Jesus and Paul announce first to Israel and then to the world is intended to address a particular historical circumstance. That announcement certainly has universal implications, but it is a mistake to skim off the stuff that appeals to our modern privatized religious sensibilities and discard the rest. Chajc’s list of ‘good news’ texts extracted from across the canon of scripture admittedly says something about the consistent character or purposes of God, but it is highly selective and, in my view, obscures the fundamental shape of biblical truth.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Hi Andrew:
OK, THAT was a pretty killer reply. I understand more fully where your logic (I’ll call it that) lies now. And much of it resonates true.
I’m a bit pressed for time and I want to re-read (probably re-re-read, too) your posting.
My heartfelt desire is to understand what God left us with so that His people can do His will corporately on this earth. As we await Jesus’ return. And that’s not a dormant waiting, but a proactive, Kingdom-living/Kingdom-building waiting. So (and I’m merely re-stating my primary hope of bible revelation, now) how are we to understand the Bible, OT and NT and the huge gap between the two covenants of God, the Gospels in particular, Paul’s letters, etc.?? How are we to work with what God has left us so that THE CHURCH can become the "spotless bride" Jesus is seeking upon his return?
This involves interpreting scripture properly and gaining Godly revelation from that interpretation. And then putting it into action, and I’ll even use two of the three prongs you identified: A corporate action (or effect) upon all of God’s people; and a political action (agreeing that "who rules over God’s people" is critical). There’s probably a historical - if you will - aspect, too but really we are talking about the present. We can refer to it as a time-based aspect (end times?)
So, in hungering to succeed at all that God would have us achieve in perfecting His Church this question is inescabable: In arriving at the notional ideal of perfect Bible/scripture interpretation and action, what is required? A corollary question might be Is the revelation humans can gain soley through reading and interpreting scripture enough to complete our marching orders?
Therefore, is it not enough to rightly discern the Word; to take the literal words and messages of Jesus and Paul and the other NT authors, and act upon them in FAITH? To not alter the Word (assuming we have the best possible translations) "one jot or tittle" which arguably can result from theorizing about context? Or is the theorizing part of the inspired revelation? To a degree, I can imagine it is.
Jesus preached and taught on the Kingdom of God. He admonished his listeners over and over to repent (turn from evil in all of it’s many forms and become righteous) and while the entire history of mankind was surely marked by evil and unrighteousness prior to Jesus’ coming (I’m thinking you aren’t referring to this history), the more immediate history and circumstances of Jesus’ time… I’m not sure what is gained from juxtaposing scripture interpretation with that particular moment in history.
How about this: David’s times were marked by, shall we say, lots of fighting between various nations and Israel. David lived his life, and is perhaps the most famous example of a man with all the human foibles in full evidence, but with a passion (heart) for God. The takeaway - literally - on David is that God will overlook many of mankind’s worst sins, and the most important characteristic a person can have in the eyes of God is to "love Him with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength." Jesus later added "and love your neighbor(s) as yourself."
All the historical context one could attach and analyze with respect to the narrative of David doesn’t add much, and in fact could corrupt the essential message if one decided to interpret all of the exogenic circumstances of David’s time as being particularly determinative of David’s heart. David’s heart helped him - through God’s favor and mercy - overcome many circumstances. Not visa versa. In the same way, Jesus’ coming and His heart for His people, and Paul’s heart for Jesus and the gentiles, all of this is apparent from a literal reading of the NT (and interpreting the NT passages - to a degree - through OT prophesies). The GOSPEL that both announce - the coming of the Kingdom of God - really addresses all of history. Which is why Chajc’s point about the entirety of the Bible - again, for sake of heurism - can be viewed as "the gospel." That’s an aside… my point is that the "particular historic circumstance" you seem to be referring to that should somehow inform our interpretation of Jesus and Paul’s teachings is really not too identifiable, and if one so chooses to try to identify it, there is a profound risk of tainting or corrupting or perhaps just diluting God’s Word and/or the revelation we are supposed to be imparted from God. So there is an element of selectivity and subjectivity that enters into the equation, so to speak, that is potentially a problem.
I’m kind of rambling right now in my haste to get to some other stuff I need to work on, so I’ll quit for now, re-read your message, and hopefully be blessed in the process.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
I would like to comment on a few things I see here. My list of texts is highly selective, but there is no other real option in this format. To offer a full listing would be almost impossible with my limited typing skills, my limited knowledge of the whole of scripture, and I would imagine it would be excruciating to read. However, I was not attempting to pull them out of there context, but instead was trying to show the underlying message of the “good news” to be much the same within all the different contexts. While the message of Jesus and Paul surely had a particular historical context in mind, I do not see how it differs from the whole shape of biblical truth in its specific call for a returning to God by his people.
I also tried to depict texts (albeit not perfectly) that showed the call to be a more corporate matter, instead of relating specifically to a personal relationship. I agree this is a deep concern for the modern church and especially here in the US, as you most likely encountered during your recent TREK in Ohio. The “good news” should be seen in more of “Kingdom of God” terms, especially when we trace Jesus’ Kingdom announcements in the Gospels to their roots in Isaiah. Initiating something much like Barth called, “this strange new world within the Bible.”
But in saying this I am still leary of this idea of going through the Gospel story and landing us beyond it. I imagine in some ways you are referring to NT Wright’s analogy of the five-act play and that we are living in the fifth act while be true to the ‘truths’ of the previous acts. However, my fear is that all to often the ‘truths’ we pick to recognize are purely social in nature and not the central truth of redemption in Jesus Christ. Or as Peter states it, “According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice…” 1 Peter 1:3-6
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
That’s worth pointing out - I rather assumed you were bending everything to a personal agenda. Sorry.
The fear is perfectly legitimate and reflects the mess that our theology is in: either personal salvation or social justice. That should be intolerable. What the narrative approach allows us to say is that we are incorporated into a people that has been redeemed, rescued from the destruction of God’s wrath. To my mind that ‘redemption’ should be understood as a corporate process, anticipated in Jesus, whereby the community of Jesus’ disciples remains faithful to YHWH in the face of suffering and overcomes the oppressor - in other words, the story of the Son of man (cf. Lk. 9:21-27).
That redeemed identity is never lost - any more than Old Testament Israel ceased to be a people that had been delivered by YHWH from slavery in Egypt. And in becoming part of that people we must, as Paul puts it, put off the old human nature and put on the new, put off the old creation and put on the new creation. We can articulate that as a personal dying and rising with Christ, for example; but that has been made possible because the corporate drama has been acted out. It is Israel that dies and rises with Christ - it is Israel that is torn and stricken and raised on the third day (Hos. 6:1-2). We find our ‘salvation’ within that historical narrative.
Imagine a dirty polluted river. At great personal expense a benefactor builds a filtration plant at a certain point and downstream from there the water flows pure and river life abounds. We cannot now go through that filtration plant ourselves - we are too far down the winding valley of history - but we can wash and thankfully jump into clean water. The good news in the Gospels is that a filtration plant was about to be installed. Our good news is that we can now swim in that purified river. More importantly - and here the metaphor creaks a little under the strain - we can splash water on the banks to startle and refresh people who, out of curiosity or thirst, approach close enough.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Andrew,
This is completely off topic, but your email doesn’t seem to be working and I know of no other way to talk with you.
My problem is that when I’m looking at the OST homepage, there are no buttons for making posts. Can you help me with this?
Best, Jacob
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Andrew I have really enjoyed the dicussion here, and no apologies needed. Unfortunately, I would guess that some of what we all say is born out of an agenda. Much like the either/or scenario you presented above agenda-driven theology is also reflective of the mess we find ourselves in.
But I will once again ask a few questions. Using your metaphor above, would it not be true that we played a part in polluting the river? If that is the case then in some way we (or at least our sin) must go through the filtration plant. Otherwise it seems to suggest that our sins (pollutants) would not be accounted for in the filtration process. You do speak of washing, but to me its seems to be a different process. I may be reading to much into your metaphor as no metephor is perfect (if so I am sorry), but I thought it was at least worth mentioning.
Second, the idea of redemption as a corporate process is an idea that intrigues me. I have read some others who talk about this and I am inclined to agree with idea, but I am not able to completely grasp what is being said. Maybe you can point me to a previous post where this has been discussed or maybe it would be good starting point for a new post.
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
“It seems to me patently absurd to suppose that the whole of scripture can be adequately reduced to the dimensions of a single concept such as ‘gospel’.”
I would like to hear (or read) you define ‘gospel’ before I offer a comment on this statement. If that is practical in terms of brevity.
“That is why in popular books and sermons scripture is routinely filtered, screened, distorted, and allegorized in the interests of preserving a marketable ‘gospel’.”
Would you mind listing some of these books you are alluding to so I can have a better understanding of what you mean by filtered, screened, distorted, etc.?
“But the main point I would make in response to your argument is that ‘gospel’ in scripture is not a univocal, universal religious principle. The ‘good news’ is always a contextualized announcement about something God has done, is doing, or is about to do.”
The ‘good news’ maybe contextualized according to its setting, but I would argue that it is not univocal. The good news is always the same thing in my mind from Genesis 1 - “So God created man in his own image…”; Exodus 19 - “…you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples…”; Psalm 53 - “God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God”; Isaiah 44 - “I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you”; Jonah 4:11 -“And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left…”; Matthew 11:28 - “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”; Romans 8:14-15 - “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not recieve the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have recieved the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba, Father!’” No matter the context or the audience the ‘good news’ is always in my mind the same call, a call to return to God. A call to be in right relationship with Him. A call to have Him as you God, as we are His people. For me this is done, once and for all (Hebrews 1:1-3; 10:10), but this discussion is for another time and place.
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Chajc, I find your statement that ‘the gospel is not univocal’ doesn’t then fit in with your saying that it is always essentially ‘the same thing". Fortunately you did say "in my mind" so perhaps that means that it is a univocality that you impose upon a very diverse set of texts indeed. OR perhaps I have just failed to appreciate your point and a clarification could be helpful?
Live to serve : Serve to live
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
The statement “the gospel is univocal” is not mine. I am quoting Andrew there and my response is that I disagree with him on that point. I am sorry for the confusion, but I am not sure how to make the quotes show up grey like everyone else usually does.
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
I’d also like to read a comprehensive, or even not so, response from Andrew. Perhaps he is ruminating on these points right now preparing a response.
Chajc, I discovered that if you click the little “enable rich-text” link below the Comment box you will get to a place where you can indent selected text from other posts. By indenting, it seems to make the text a different color as well. Plus you have options for other font characteristics.
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Yup, that’s it. I’m ruminating. I’m also travelling, which makes putting a response together a little tricky. I’m actually in small town Ohio with my excellent friend Wes White on a TREK, talking to all sorts of people about the state of the church in Europe and the emerging response.
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Sweet, Andrew. The depth of your commitment to participation in a continuing discourse on all of the many subjects posited on this website is much respected. Do you live in the US? Or just visiting?
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Thank you. This should answer your question.
Re: Chajc Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
OK I have made this even more confusing by my response. Rather than attempting to fix it let me just say it this way - Andrew said it is not univocal, and I am trying to say I find it is univocal. Sorry for all the confusion on my part.
worldly ways
Andrew, your review of Mark’s accounts of various aspects of Jesus’ interactions with his disciples is very illuminating. Certainly the apocalyptic perspective within the context of what it is that God really wants for Israel, derived from Mark’s allusions to OT prophecies, helps to build a framework for interpreting the Son of Man’s thrust. As your summary demonstrates, there is a crying need to read the gospel with the understanding that "the call to discipleship has a specific temporal framework in view and a specific mission".
In addition we also do have to take into account the reality that our gospel accounts are all post Easter compositions that serve a purpose for the communities that first utilised them. I know that I am here stating the obvious! But, it is important to recognise that in any gospel account, whether before of after Jerualem’s fall, the emphasis is placed squarely on the events immediately leading to Jesus crucifixion. We can fairly safely conclude that the proclammation of the gospel as well as the life of the NT communities revolved around the events of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. In other words there is both proclammation and catechism involved in the substance of each of the gospels.
In the epistles, while there is little enough (direct) repetition from the gospels, large sections obviously hark back to Jesus gospel teaching with the emphasis more on the practicalities of creating and sustaining a community that is inspired by the way proclaimed by its author. Paul’s repeated emphasis on the overweaning importance of practically living out the law of love, in community, goes to demonstrate an organic and cause-effect relationship between what was taught by Jesus in an Israelite environment and the expectations for how life can still be lived in accordance with Jesus teachings within a Graeco-Roman millieu.
In Romans 8 and elsewhere Paul’s exhortation on the hope that lies ahead is a call to even more sincerely follow Jesus’ way of love. Jesus has already set us free and we have each experienced this new freedom, so as sons of God let us forge ahead together, in love…
You astutely state that: "The radical Jesus movement of the first century was shaped by the need to announce a profoundly disturbing good news to a world that was quite prepared to kill in order to protect itself." and then go on to question how universally this continues to be a truth.
Well, I think there may never come a time (in this world) when a real application of Jesus’ two "commandments" will result in anything other than persecution. If we are not facing persecution there are only two possibilities. 1. Jesus has come again and transformed the world entirely into his kingdom and 2. We are not following the path of discipleship but have instead chosen to be accomodative to the way of the world.
Is there anything in the "new creation" teaching that involves other than the radical application of Jesus’ ethical teaching? I don’t see anything like vindication either in the fall of Jerusalem or in the ‘conversion’ of the Roman empire. When judged purely by the simple criteria of Jesus "Law of Love", I’m afraid rather the reverse.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Andrew writes,
Aside from Andrew’s very idiosyncratic ‘post-eschatology’, I would make a few observations about this. Ecclesially, the differences between Jesus’ itinerant ministry and the ragged band of disciples, and the Pauline churches have been, I would suggest, overemphasized. There were differences, to be sure, but as Mt.18 illustrates for example, the community of disciples in Jesus’ day was an embryonic form of the church as instituted in the latter half of the first century. There is a fundamental continuity between the twelve apostles and the apostolic church: a communal life of discipleship lived in submission to the pattern of authority exemplified throughout the NT - an authority embodied in the scriptures, and vested in the person of Christ as Head.
Missionally, the redemptive-historical context of Jesus’ mission to Israel was comprehended by the apostles as continuous with that of the post-Pentecost church - entailing a mission to Israel and the nations (e.g., Acts 1:8). The good news was in fact firstly understood by the Jerusalem church as specifically for Israel, and only later comprehended as good news for Gentiles (qua Gentiles) as well - see Ac.10-11, 15. And even when it was for the Gentile, and presented to the Gentile, Paul, for example, quietly hoped that it would be received as such by his fellow Jew (Ro.11:11-14). Jesus’ historic mission, as inaugurated in Israel, in a very real sense (not mere analogy) continues today.
Lastly, what makes Andrew so difficult to argue with is that his peculiar theology renders the NT, as the record of the early church, irrelevant ipso facto for the discussion. Everything that would challenge his thesis is confined to the particular mission of Jesus to Israel and the first generation of believers, by definition…
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Very nice to hear from you again!
I agree that there must be both continuity and discontinuity, but there is still a question as to how we frame that.
My ‘idiosyncratic’ eschatology suggests that the Jesus communities in Palestine were living in a narrative of judgment on Israel and the renewal of the covenant that had as its horizon the destruction of Jerusalem; the churches of the Greek-Roman world were living in a narrative in which the hegemony of pagan imperialism was challenged by the lordship of Christ - a narrative which culminated historically in the defeat of pagan imperialism and the vindication of the church for its defiance of Caesar and worship of YHWH.
But these are two periods in or aspects of a coherent eschatological narrative that is summed up in the vision of the Son of man: it is through the faithfulness of the suffering community, anticipated in Jesus, that Israel is concretely delivered from its oppressors and the reign of YHWH over his people - the kingdom of God - established. So I would argue that it is in this eschatological respect that the Jesus communities and the Pauline churches are in narrative continuity, which is why central to Paul’s teaching is the thought of imitating Christ in his suffering and resurrection.
The mission to the nations, as you rightly point out, is also part of this: it is fundamentally the announcement, the euangelion, to the world that God is about the act to judge rebellious Israel, redeem a faithful community, and give them victory over their enemies; it is the announcement that YHWH alone, and not Caesar, is sovereign over all the earth. But again, as far as the New Testament narrative goes, I would contextualize this. The announcement is fulfilled historically through the faithfulness of the suffering community and its eventual vindication against pagan imperialism.
What we are left with today is the consequence of that narrative. If the early church had not walked a path of faithful suffering, it would have vanished from history; there would be no church of Jesus Christ today. But my argument is that the church made that journey and was vindicated for the sake of the promise to Abraham - so that the people of God could be his new creation in the midst of the nations. I don’t think that this makes the New Testament irrelevant for us - but it makes it relevant in a rather different way, within the frame of the whole biblical narrative and of the continuation of that narrative into the future. I think it is perfectly possible to define our vocation as God’s people in this narrative-historical manner, and that we make much better sense of the Bible in doing so.
I see scripture somewhat as the account of a journey that a people makes along a road - over mountains, through swamps, across plains, and so on. Some parts of that journey are of critical significance for the character and indeed survival of that people. The New Testament narrates an episode that could have resulted in the disappearance of that people altogether; the journey could have come to an end because of the judgment of God, because of the opposition of Rome. The people learnt obedience and faithfulness, however, and so they made their way through that dangerous landscape with Jesus at their head, as pioneer of their faithfulness, as Lord.
Now we are much further down the road - so far that when we look back, the landscape is flattened for us into two dimensions; the impression of a road through the tumultuous landscape of history has faded. What we have is a photograph in which we struggle to differentiate between the various stages of the journey; and somehow we try to live in the whole picture, as though background hills and foreground plains are all equally relevant to us.
What I am advocating is a narrative and historical imagination that is able to travel that road again and experience how mountains give way to swamp and swamp gives way to desert and desert gives way to rolling hills, because I think that by doing this we will gain a much better grasp not only the whole of scripture but also of where we are at the moment on this road of history and how to deal with our own crisis.
Re: Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough
Andrew:
Yours is a thoughtful theological proposition, an academically adroit analysis, for sure.
Let me ask you this. How does taking this heuristic journey edify one, spiritually and from the proposition of establishing rightstanding with God through Jesus? The somewhat tortuous analysis of what are clearly hypothetical allegorical conclusions - which I am not questioning in terms of their potential accuracy… what do we gain, at the end of the day?
This is an important question because to me, the utmost for His highest would be revelation regarding how to live our lives today, relevantly and/or in the face of the “unsaved” world, if you will, but also and more importantly as Jesus would have us function as “the Church.”
If knowing the things you postulate in this thread is of such utmost relevance, then I’m all in, 110+percent. Can you maybe reply to this question and supply some additional context and meaning on this point? Thank you in advance for your efforts.