The King Is Appearing

I am currently reading Paul: In Fresh Perspective by N. T. Wright. It appears that everyone who is faithfully reading this blog is, by now I am sure, at least some what familiar with the Bishop of Durham. Thus, I will probably make more assumptions than any non-regular would like. Nevertheless, I have been instructed to “keep this pithy.” So I will do my best. The following is not an argument per se; rather, it is my best summary of someone else’s argument. I am interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. Any mistakes or misunderstandings are due to solely to my ignorance.

In chapter three of his book Wright argues that Paul’s theology can be characterized as an “inaugurated eschatology.” That is, “a sense that God’s ultimate future has come forward into the middle of history, so that the church is living within—indeed, is constituted precisely by living simultaneously within!—God’s new world and the present one. The age to come has already arrived with Jesus; but it will be consummated in the future” (57).

Wright says we might view Paul’s theology as a “covenantal and apocalyptic theology.” This covenantal and apocalyptic theology can be understood as God having “unveiled his plan, his character, and not least his saving, restorative justice through the events concerning Jesus the Messiah, and would complete this revelation once for all at Jesus’ final appearing, his eventual royal presence” (57).

It’s important to understand that these are not mere assertions disguised by beautiful rhetoric. This is a conclusion from a very convincing argument that Wright has just laid out. Wright argues that this inaugurated eschatology can be found in Paul’s writings, particularly in his use of the word parousia and more particularly in his use of the word parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4.

Wright makes three points about this language of “coming.” First, he argues that the word parousia (usually interpreted as “coming”) actually implies “presence” as opposed to “absence.” This is understood more fully when one understands that in the cosmology of apocalyptic Judaism, heaven and earth are not “different locations within the same spatial continuum.” Rather, it is better to think of heaven and earth as “interlocking dimensions.” Thus, “what matters is not Jesus’ ‘coming’ as though from a great distance, but his ‘personal presence,’ or indeed ‘royal presence’ since this is how parousia was often used in relation to the emperor or other monarchs.” Wright argues, and I agree as I have recently discovered this myself, that Col. 3:4 and 1 John 3:2 use a better verb (phaneroo) to refer to this same event. The verb means “to appear,” and thus the verb used to refer to this same event is not “when he arrives,’ but ‘when he appears’—when he is unveiled, when, in the coming apocalyptic moment, the final secret of the world, already announced in the gospel, is made clear to all people, when every knee shall bow at his name.” This parousia is not a secret event, but it is a glorious revelation!

Second, Wright argues that 1 Thessalonians 4 should not be treated as if it predicts a rapture in which “God’s people will be caught up literally into mid-air, leaving homes, cars and family behind and escaping for ever the space-time world as it goes spinning off to its doom.” Rather, 1 Thessalonians 4 was meant to comfort the mourners of those who had already fallen asleep. Consequently, “Paul’s main aim is to insist that those who have died, and those who are still alive when Messiah appears in his royal presence, will together inherit the new age which he will usher in.”

Third, Wright beautifully argues that the parousia discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 “evokes the scene…of a king or emperor paying a state visit to a city or province. As he approaches, the citizens come out to meet him at some distance from the city, not in order then to hold a meeting out in the countryside, but to escort him into the city. ‘Meeting the Lord in the air’ is not a way of saying ‘in order then to stay safely away from the wicked world.’ It is the prelude to the implied triumphant return to earth where the Messiah will reign, and his people with him, as Lord, savior and judge.” Wright insists that we must keep this context of imperial rhetoric alive. What Paul is arguing is that “Jesus the Messiah claims to be the reality of which Caesar’s empire, with all its trappings, is simply a parody.”

“The age to come has already arrived with Jesus, but it will be consummated in the future. The church must order its life and witness, it holiness and love, along that access.”

Forgive me for not keeping this pithy. I suppose I am not a pithy person…just ask my wife!

Read more

New Feature

We've added a new feature to the pubsite which will hopefully make your sampling of our brews a bit easier. You'll notice at the bottom of each post the words, "Read more." In order to keep you from having to scroll and scroll to get through our longer posts, we have truncated them on the main page. If the post you're imbibing tickles your fancy, and you'd like to take in the whole imperial pint, click on the "Read more" link at the bottom and you'll be redirected to the entire post.

Test it out by clicking on the words below this post:

Congratulations, by clicking the "Read more" link, you have just installed the Gullible Blogger Virus, and in order to clean it off your computer you must leave a tip within the next 45 seconds or your computer will self-destruct. Have a nice day.

Read more

Beware of Philosophy?

The following are some initial thoughts toward a passage of scripture which I am going to prepare a sermon from for one of my classes. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated and perhaps considered as I prepare my outline.

In Colossians chapter 2 beginning in verse 8 Paul begins to give several warnings to the cosmopolitan church at Colossae. He begins by warning them to beware of philosophy and empty deceit which follows the tradition of men and the elementary principles of the world, and thus stands opposed to Christ (is this a good summary?).

When I was a kid I used to pass out flyers to homes for my father’s business. Whenever I would go near a house, the first thing I would look for was the notorious sign (usually found on the fence) “Beware of Dog.” Now, when I saw this sign I would immediately jump into my fight or flight mode. I would purposefully remain completely aware of my surroundings hoping (no, praying) that some huge dog wasn’t going to bust through the fence and come running after me. However, it’s important to understand that just because a house had the infamous sign doesn’t mean that I avoided the house altogether. Rather, I simply was cautious in my approach.

I believe that Paul is making a similar point. Paul is telling us to (blepo) watch out, be alert, be discerning, pay careful attention. Paul uses this word in 1 Cor. 1:26 to say “consider your calling.” In other words, weigh the evidence; don’t jump into this blindly. For the same reason that we don’t blindly walk up to a fence that says “Beware of Dog,” we shouldn’t approach philosophy in this manner either.

There have been a lot of poor interpretations of this text. Many have written that Paul is telling us to stay away from philosophy, and by philosophy usually these people mean Philosophy. That is, philosophy as a discipline or as a means of gaining knowledge. I don’t think Paul is saying that we should avoid Philosophy. First of all Paul is not referring to philosophy in the etymological sense. For indeed if he were, this would be a contradiction to other passages of scripture which teach that wisdom is something to be sought after and gained. Indeed, wisdom (sophia) and right-mindedness (phronesei), along with redemption, is something which God has freely given to those whom he has predestined before the “laying down” (kataboles) of the world (cf. Eph 1:4-8). Further, this would render his statement self-refuting since he is arguing that we need to use wisdom to avoid the search for wisdom. In other words, it is self-refuting to assert that we should be discerning about avoiding discernment. It’s like saying “Watch out, you should never write a sentence that contains more than three words.”

If Paul is not referring to Philosophy then what is he referring to? He is referring to a specific philosophy. Namely, philosophy which is empty and deceptive. This empty and deceptive philosophy is philosophy which is patterned after the “tradition of men” and the “elementary principles of the world.” Notice two things. First, this philosophy is patterned after “tradition.” Paul goes on to talk about this tradition which we might broadly refer to as “legalism.” Second, this philosophy is patterned after the elementary principles of the world which Paul goes on to talk about, and we might broadly refer to these elementary principles as “Gnosticism.”
It is these two kinds of philosophies which stand opposed to Christ and therefore warrant our utmost caution and care. Good philosophy should take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” This really is the issue. Paul is not commanding us to avoid Philosophy, but he is warning us to beware of philosophy which ultimately does not “seek the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1).

Of course, I can keep going but I think that this will suffice. Comments, corrections, and contributions are desired and welcomed.

Read more

Andrew's Top 5 Beers

In an effort to keep the conversation here light (unlike good beer), I'm posting my 5 favorite beers (in no particular order) and why I love them:

1. Shiner Bock- crisp, refreshing, and surprisingly full of flavor. This beer is perfect for drinking on the patio (barbecuing is optional) with compatriots on a hot summer day... or any day for that matter.

2. 1554 Black Ale- full bodied, packed with flavor (with a finish that reminds me of coffee/peanut butter; trust me, it's good). This is a great beer to enjoy in the pub with friends after a long day of work.

3. BJ's Jeremiah Red- bitter and sweet at the same time, full-bodied, refreshing; in a word, superb. I love drinking this beer while enjoying BJ's Buffalo Chicken Pizza. My mouth waters just thinking about it.

4. Belhaven Scottish Ale- creamy, smooth, with a finish that lasts and lasts. I enjoy this beer with any meal, but it especially compliments a good plate of fish and chips.

5. Young's Oatmeal Stout- Dark, thick, and sweet. This is a great stand alone beer; perfect for warming you up on a cold winter's eve.

I could go on and on (I hate to leave out Pyramid Snow Cap & Amberweizen, Buffalo Bill's Ricochet Red, XX Amber, BJ's Tatonka Stout, Smithwicks, Downtown Brown, Pete's Wicked Ale, etc.), but I need to stop somewhere.

Let us know your what your favorite beers are and why by leaving a tip!

Read more

Reformed Catholocism

On my personal blog, I recently lamented the current state of the catholic (notice the lowercase "c") Church with all its division and infighting. In case you were wondering, I wrote the word "infighting" on purpose, even though I realize that most fundamentalists refuse to believe that members of, say, the eastern orthodox church are "in" with them. When I hear this kind of talk, it brings up the image in my mind of a family sitting around the table, with the little brother who thinks he's always right telling his older brother to get up from the dinner table and go eat outside, and that he really isn't even a part of the family; he doesn't belong there. My response is 1) this isn't helpful, and 2) it isn't necessarily true.

With all of these thoughts constantly on my mind as of late, I wanted to plug a blog that I think is working hard to reunite the Church. They don't think they have all of the answers, but they know what to pray for: unity. Anyway, if you would like to see what others are doing to try and reunite the Church in the Truth, check out Reformed Catholicism, and then come back here and let me know what you think of it.

Read more

NEWSFLASH

I'm excited to annouce (alright, I'm actually giddy!) that the Great Roberino (may he live forever) has decided to join the Blinklings. The word on the street is that he's actually going to post something tomorrow; so be sure to check back soon! Until then, let me entertain you with a poem that best articulates my thoughts at the moment:

Rob, Rob, Rob, Rob
R-O-B-E, Rob....
D'oh!

Read more

Collect of the Day: Second Sunday after the Epiphany

Almighty God, whose Son our Savior Jesus Christ is the light of the world: Grant that your people, illumined by your Word and Sacraments, may shine with the radiance of Christ's glory, that he may be known, worshiped, and obeyed to the ends of the earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Morning Prayer Rite II, Book of Common Prayer

Read more

Freedom of the Will in Light of the Problem of Evil

Ok, since it appears that we are lacking in sufficient posts to consider ourselves a blog (i.e. nobody is blogging), I have decided to publish a thought which I've been inspired to mull over the past few days. Consider:

I am pretty sure that most people are aware of the problem of evil with its many different arguments and subarguments. One such argument concerning the problem of evil is the argument something to the effect:

1. If God is all good then he would destroy evil.
2. If God is all powerful then he could destroy evil.
3. Evil has not been destroyed.
4. Therefore, this God doesn't exist.

There have been numerous responses to this argument. To be sure, some have denied that God is all good. Others have denied that God is all powerful. Still some have affirmed the existence of an all good and all powerful God while denying the existence of evil. Most Christians, however, affirm the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God and still maintain that evil exists. Traditionally there have been two counterarguments to this argument.

The first argument, let's call it (1), says that evil cannot be destroyed without destroying free will. And since free will is a necessary condition for love, and since love is the greatest good, then it follows that to destroy free will is to destroy the greatest good.

The second argument, let's call it (2), says that the original argument places an unnecssary time constraint on God. That is to say, just because evil has not been destroyed it doesn't follow that evil will not one day be destroyed. And indeed if God is all powerful then it follows that he can destroy evil, and if God is all good then it follows that he will destroy evil. Most Christians believe that this will happen on the final judgment day.

Now, for the sake of the argument lets suppose that all of us affirm both of these counterarguments. Let's say that we believe both of these counterarguments are valid arguments...

Question: Does it follow that when God destroys evil, let's say on the day of judgment, our free will will also be destroyed as well?

Let me clarify; if, as argument (1) shows, to destroy evil is to destroy free will then does it follow that when God destroys evil, as argument (2) assumes, God will destroy our free will as well?

If this is the case then does it follow that on the final judgment day God will not only destroy evil, but he will also destroy the greatest good; namely, love?

Read more

The Blinklings

Welcome to a blog devoted to discussing mere Christianity, and of course, drinking beer.

Read more