Why Wii™ Bowling?

The Central Baptist Wii™ Bowling Association Logo

As soon as I played Wii™ Bowling for the first time I thought, “We absolutely need to have a Church league.”  So we had one last year and it was quite successful.  So successful, as a matter of fact that the league has nearly doubled in size and now has two divisions in it’s second season.

Folks sometimes wonder, however, “Why on earth are you wasting time running a Wii™ Bowling league?”  It’s a good question.  After all, many Churches plan summer missions trips, or take the youth to a myriad of music festivals, or do some other “Christian” event over the summer.  Wouldn’t we be better off doing something like that?

Well, I’m not so certain that a music festival trip is what our fellowship needs, but I will absolutely agree that a summer missions project is something that Central needs to be involved with, and soon.  I don’t see a Wii™ Bowling league as being detrimental to that desire, though.  In fact, I see it as part of how we’re going to get to a missions project over the summer (and continued missional living over the year).  You see as fun as the league is, and it is a lot of fun, it’s also done a wonderful job of connecting people in the church in ways that hadn’t been done before.  By inviting people into their homes to play a match, even people in the congregation that the host(s) didn’t know that well, the bowlers in the league were able to practice (in a small way) the discipline of hospitality.  In fact, before each match the teams all prayed a prayer asking for just that to occur.  It worked – families that had been only distantly connected before became better connected, and newer families in the congregation began to feel more a part of the fellowship.  It was a great experience.

As the folks at Central begin to become more connected to each other in the giving and receiving of hospitality trust will develop as a result.  When people trust each other, and when that trust is instilled with the power of Christ’s spirit, then a group of people called in Jesus’ name can accomplish some wonderful things.

And that is why I bother with setting up a Wii™ Bowling league for our church.

Facing the Wind – Introduction

Below is a rough draft of my introduction to the devotional study I’m writing on the Holy Spirit, entitled Facing the Wind.  I share it with you, my readers, for two reasons.  First, to spark interest among the folks from Central Baptist who will be going through the study at some point in the coming “year.”  Second, to perhaps generate some discussion on the reasons why the language of the Holy Spirit (and the accompanying awareness of the Spirit’s presence) has been lost by so many “traditional” churches.  Read it after the break.

A Moving Adventure

On Saturday Central witnessed the great pew migration of 2009.  Our herd had to be moved to other grazing areas so we can prep the floor to get some new carpet.  Here’s a video of the process.  Great job gang.

The Old Old Story

I just finished reading Robert Webber’s Worship Old and New, and I’m better for.  Worship Old and New was first published in 1982 and revised in 1994 – in many ways it acts a the forerunner of Webber’s execellent Ancient-Future series of books.  For pastors or other church leaders who want to expose their congregants to some of Webber’s Ancient-Future material, Worship Old and New is a good place to start.

At time this book was published, Webber’s words issued a clear challenge to Evangelicals to re-capture an ancient (and Biblical) structure of worship.  A challenge, I might add, seems to have fallen largely on deaf ears.  Here in these pages Webber shows why so many Evangelical youth end up getting tired of Evangelical™ worship and end up moving in other directions – would that people had listened!

I re-discovered something about myself as well while I read these pages.  I am a “worship guy.”  I love to delve into the nature and structure of worship and help people see the working out of the Gospel in the experience of worship.  I am a “worship guy,” and there’s nothing wrong with that.  In fact, there is something quite good about that – a good which has come to be challenged by many of my contemporaries that Webber labelled The Younger Evangelicals.  In the thinking of a good number of my contemporaries, it makes no sense to spend so many hours of a week preparing for something that really only exists as a small portion of the congregation’s schedule.  It is better, in that mind-set, to spend more time on things that “matter” in the surrounding community.  I’m don’t knock the desire to “do good” in the community.  Heck, I’m hoping that Central really ramps this up in the coming months and years, but I have to balk at the notion so many of my contemporaries have expressed.  The fact is, the only way you can even think of a notion such as that is to believe that nothing actually happens in worship.

Webber successfully challenged that notion years before it was widely articulated in the world, and I thank him for it.  It is in worship that the congregation enters into the reality of the Gospel,  declares the great saving deeds done by our savior on the Cross, and finds itself joining the great chorus of voices on earth and aroud the heavenly throne shouting the greatness of our Lord.  It is in worship that Earth and Heaven meet, and it is in worship that the victory of Jesus on the Cross spurs us into the world to be a living light for the Kingdom.  Why do I spend so much time on worship?  Because I care deeply that this congregation be a living witness to Jesus by being a real presence in this community.  If worship were merely the singing of some sappy songs which touch our hearts, or the hearing of a lecture on some “key principles” by which we should live, then I would be in perfect agreement that spending any large amount of time on  pondering worship would be a wasted effort.  Worship, however, cannot be captured by the mere singing of songs or the presentation of a lecture – worship is a time of mystical transport into the great feast of our savior.  A point which Webber makes so wonderfully.

So, as Central moves forward into it’s restructuring, then we will also have to look at the structure of our worship (or commission people to take ownership of that responsibility).  After all, As the Church worships, so it believes.

Outdated Education

A couple of weeks ago I read a blog post over on ShellyPalmer.com entitled, “What if your dream job does’t exist anymore?“  It was all about a several conversations that Shelly had with people trying to break into the news media business – looking for dream jobs that either no longer exist, or will soon be extinct.   These conversations culminated in a lecture Shelly did at Columbia Business School – where he was shocked that the students in the class were all looking to do jobs that are no longer what they were, if they exist at all.  I’ll let Shelly’s own words describe his reaction,

Just for fun, I asked about a dozen of them what they hoped to be when they entered the work force. The answers were a total surprise. To a person, they are aspiring to jobs that have devolved into commoditized low wage work, that they still perceive to be high profile, high paying careers.

Reading this post got me thinking about my own seminary education.  I’ve quipped ever since I graduated that I had recieved a wonderful pastoral education at my seminary – for 1950.  Shelly’s post made me realize that it’s not just the Church that’s having a hard time keeping up.  It seems like everyone is getting blind-sided by the rapid transition of our society.  So what are we to?

Well, for once, it would be nice if Christians took time to understand the trend that’s happening in our culture and realized that the way we educate our leadership – from pastors on down – is woefully outdated.  Pastors, and church education curriculums, seem to be designed for churches that don’t actually exist anymore.  This is a problem.

Think about it, my own seminary eduction was structured in such a way  so that I’d be prepared to go to a congregation where the pastor was essentially a CEO who gave a speech to the shareholders once a week.  In-between speeches, the pastor went around to the shareholders, giving them what they thought they needed, paying out dividends to people with a greater stake in company, and trusting that the by-laws managed the business of the company well.  Oh, we put nice spiritual-sounding words on what we were being taught.  Words like, “Pastoral counseling,” “conflict resolution,”  and “denominational polity” – but when you adopt a business format for an organization it warps the way ministry is done.  The medium is the message.

Now, in the 1950’s and 60’s this CEO model worked well because there was an incredible growth of people who wanted to have a share in a congregation somewhere.  It was a statisical glitch in the history of the US, but since it was working no one was bothered much by it.  The shareholders were happy, the CEO’s were doing well, and the parent-companies (denominations) were having a field-day utilizing the expanded resources that the growth of the 50’s and 60’s gave them.

Then the bubble burst.

American culture shifted from the exploratory passion of the laste 60’s, to the hedonism of the 70’s.  An endless war and government scandals left people wary of “traditional authority,” and suddenly people who moved into the endlessly growing suburbs were no longer making the search for a church an immediate priority.  Even worse, people who were coming into the faith  in the 60’s and 70’s were chaffing under the unspoken limits set up by congregations.  Pastors suddenly were CEO’s of corporations with several factions of shareholders – all complaining about things that weren’t covered by the by-laws.  The 70’s and the 80’s were, in many Churches, divisive times as pastoral CEO’s were inevitably drawn into the conflict.  Some sided with people who owned more “shares” in the Church, others were restless themselves and sided with those who were pushing congregations in new directions.  Many more ended up being nothing more than referees – trying to keep feuding factions together until things got back to a “normal” that would never come.  I still meet these pastors – battle scars have left them calm, even-keeled, and dreadfully dull.

These aren’t the congregations seminary is prepping people to pastor.  In 2009, almost 30 years after the CEO model stopped being widely successful – pastors are still taught to be 1950’s era pastors.  Is it any wonder that so many pastors simply burn out and give up?  These churches no longer exist, or are in danger of extinction!

What exists now in many congregations is the echo of what once was.  By-laws are viciously held on to, even though they haven’t worked for years.  The appearance of buildings is kept up, in hopes that one day people will start walking through the doors on their own again.  The factions continue to fight, or keep uneasy truces because they realize that “winning” control of a diminished congregation is a pyrrhic victory at best.  Every one of these congregations that I’ve met has also been waiting for CEO that would lead them into a new future that looked a lot like their glorious past – even while secretly preparing to pounce on the CEO if they step out of line.  The few resources left, after all, have to be protected.

Now, many of my missional and emergent friends see the same trends as I do and say, “Exactly.  That’s why we need to dump the idea of seminary altogether!”  To these friends seminary can never be anything more than several years of prepping to be a congregational CEO that gives weekly speeches to the shareholders.  They want to form entrepreneural and flexible congregations that are “relevant” to what people are looking for now.  I respect the work these friends do, I really do, but I also think they’re making the same mistakes that led to the CEO model lock-in that we ended up with in the 1950’s.  They’re making the assumption that the desires people have now for simple, unadorned, faith are the impulses people will always have.  While these churches are, indeed, flexible – they’re going to discover that they are only flexible within a certain realm of assumptions.  When society shifts again, they’ll be as stressed as “institutional churches” are today.

Seminary is important – but it must change.  The curriculum needs to stop being tweaked to make pastors better CEO’s (”let’s add an evangelism course so they can help the church grow”).  The CEO model is dead or on hospice, let’s allow it to die with whatever dignity it has left.  Instead, I hope that seminary education can focus on continuity – helping hopeful pastors to see ministry as part of the great tapestry of the Christian faith.  Studies in Church history, worship, and ancient discipleship need to form the core of pastoral study – so pastors can help give congregations their context in the grand story of the faith, a context sorely lacking for want of pastors who are unable to see it themselves.  Alongside this work on continuity, pastor’s ought to be taught how to be futurists.  There is an art-form which springs from looking at current trends and then using one’s imagination to see how those trends are changing the world in which we do mission.  I’m tired of congregations being 15-20 years behind the curve, we need congregations (and pastors) who are willing to help form the curve – doing so from the Spirit-driven desire to remain in the continuity of the Apostolic faith.  Seminaries must take on an Ancient-Future stance if they are to be part of how the Church in this country moves forward.  I hope they hold the funeral for the CEO model of pastoring sooner, rather than later.  It’s already long over-due.

Oh Communion, Communion, Where Art Thou?

I don’t want to make lite of the whole Swine Flu thing.  The CDC can’t be blamed for handling the situation the way that they are.  It’s not their fault that a potentially dangerous strain of flu has sprung up at the same time news media seems to be dropping like flies.  The papers and 24 hour news networks needed a story with legs to sell advertising, and they got one.  Fear sells.

On the other hand, it boggles my mind when Churches discontinue the practice of Communion becuase of a a strain of flu.  It’s inexcusable, it really is.  Yes, I know the whole possible transmission fears – I have two kids in school, I get it.  On the other hand, Communion is something that Churches have refused to stop practicing throughout history when under the threat of death from a hostile worldly power – we’re going stop because of a new strain of flu?  Really?

Look, I don’t have problems taking precautions.  Encouraging the use of hand sanitizer and asking people to stay home if they’re ill (as long as the Deacons bring Communion to those people later in the week) are things I have no problems with.  I’d ask people who are older with weakened immune systems to stay home if they feel uneasy, but this flu doesn’t seem to be going after them as much.  Refusing to practice Communion, however, just boggles my mind.  The only way that I can think people justify such a decision is if they believe nothing “real” happens in the act of partaking the images of Jesus’ body and blood.

Oh, that’s right.  If Communion is nothing more than “mere symbol” then there really is no reason to “risk” taking it. Len Sweet summed up my thoughts on this with one, beautiful, tweet this morning:

Our Joe-Biden fearmongering response to swine-flu reveals wussification of church. One church’s “precautions” for Sunday http://bit.ly/Om0zG

Amen Len.

Oh, by the way, we are in a county where actual cases have been reported.  We’ll be passing the peace, and taking communion, and won’t be canceling our fellowship lunch/spring meeting.  So, if you’re coming to Central, bring some hand sanitizer and a surgical mask if you must – but come, and worship.

The Weakest Link

One of the great things about our region is that our regional pastor (rough translation, “A Bishop with severly limited powers, given that they herd cats for a living”) is big on spiritual development.  When I moved to the area he was starting up a mentoring program, akin to a spiritual confessor, called “Pastor to Pastor.”  I signed up immedately and Lee gave me some names of people to talk to, one of which has become a great friend and mentor, Frank Reeder.  Frank and I have been through a lot together, and have supported each other’s call through thick and thin – a true give and take friendship that I’m priviledged to be in.

Frank and I probe each other, and he asked me a question last week that struck me deeply, “What is the biggest obstacle to Central Baptist becomming genuinely healthy in the long-term?” (my paraphrase).  I didn’t even really need to think about the answer to the question, I wrestle with it every day.

You see, I’m the biggest obstacle to Central Baptist transitioning to long-term health and growth in the Gospel.

I don’t say that with a sense of despair, but as recognition that I have some transitioning to do myself.  You see, in all my years as a Christian I’ve never been near the leadership of a healthy church – one that was making disciples who are deep in the faith and bound together in community.  Every congregation that’s ever migrated me to “leadership” has been on the cusp of needing an emergency restart (one of them is, in fact, now closed).  So, while I’ve had lots of exposure to faithful pastors who keep loving people who actively try to tear them to pieces while they point to the narrow path of discipleship, I’m lacking in the examples of pastors who have been through the process of transition and come out on the other side nimble and ready to keep transitioning as they pursue Jesus with their congregation.

So that this means is that I’m really good at helping folks begin the process of understanding the nature of the Church differently, I really have few models from my personal background upon which to build in the wake of that rethinking process.  It’s this profound lack of models that led me to serve on the regional staff for ABCNJ, what Lee and the Staff are doing to bring some health to an unhealthy region was something that I wanted to witness close up so I could learn – even though it sucks up some time from my local pastoral responsibilities.

Everyone from the region who comes to Central for worship or another event has told me how much the congregation has changed – people appear to genuinely respect and have affection for one another, which has not always been the truth of the congregation over the last 25 years of so (with grave mistakes being made both by pastoral leadership and the congregation).  It’s good to hear that a transition has been noticed – it’s come with a lot of blood, sweat, and “conversations” with God.  Changing that portion of the culture, however, was easy compared to what needs to happen next.  That sense of trust and affection needs to be put to the test so that it emerges as a clearly articulated (and enacted) mission which a new structure that supports that clearly articulated direction.  This is the tack where I end up in uncharted waters.  Here be dragons, as the old saying go.

I honestly don’t know if I’ve got what it takes to pull it off.  Or, if you will, to be the vessel that is part of how Jesus pulls it off.  I look at my background and say, “I got nothin’.”  Of course that seems to be the very type of person that God often uses to pull off the seemingly impossible with next to nothing.  That fact doesn’t make it any less intimidating.

Now in saying all this I want to be perfectly clear, I am in no way feeling unsupported by the folks at Central Baptist Church.  This was the other part of the conversation Frank had with me last week.  Here’s how supported I feel at Central:

• I have at least one person who will get in my face and talk to me about how I’m doing
• I have a couple who are able to interact with my sermons with critiques which are not “theological muggings” (which invigorates me, by the way)
• I have more than a few who will come up and ask me, “What do you need us to do right now?”
• I have several others who are psyched about the things they are learning,and the impact they have on their lives
• I have people who have, over time, come to the conclusion that even though I’m not a “traditional pastor” I’m actually worth trusting and have their best interests for Christian spiritual growth in my heart.
• Even though I make up a good portion of our budge short-fall, I’ve had people (even from unexpected sources) tell me how much they want me to stick around.

So is everything roses?  Not at all.  We have conflict, disagreement, and struggles.  There are times where the congregation wants to strangle me and I want to whack them upside the head (probably with good reason on both counts) – but there is love, and i appreciate that fact.

What it comes down to is this.  Even though I’m woefully ill-equipped to be taking the journey I’m about to begin with Central, I’ll bank on that love which exists among the congregation as being an expression of Jesus’ love for us, and his desire for us to become who we need to be in this place, and at this time, for the glory of his Kingdom.  It’s just daunting to think that I probably have to change more than anyone – even as I’ve already changed more than just about anyone realizes.

“Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done….”

Go Ahead, Pass Your Notes

One of the most interesting things going on during the BibleTech09 conference was the undercurrent of conversation going via twitter during the sessions.  It was at that time that I thought Twitter could be an incredible tool for encouraging conversation during a learning event like a class or seminar.  I’m already hoping to encourage people with ABCNJ to use hashtags to tweet at our annual gathering – becuase it’s instant, and usually relevant feedback to the event.

Well, it looks like I’m not the only one who’s figured out that Twitter can be useful in a learning environment.  Cole W. Camplese, who is the director of education-technology services at Pennsylvania State University at University Park actually teaches using two screens.  The first shows his content, the second follows the twitter stream for his class. Basically, he’s telling his students to pass notes.  Think it was a mess waiting to happen?  Think again, read this paragraph from the article,

Once students warmed to the idea that their professors actually wanted them to chat during class, students begin floating ideas or posting links to related materials, the professor says. In some cases, a shy student would type an observation or question on Twitter, and others in the class would respond with notes encouraging the student to raise the topic out loud. Other times, one of the professors would see a link posted by a student and stop class to discuss it.

That is exactly my experience with Twitter in a learning environment.  Almost contrary to logic (that distractions are bad), an active twitter stream actually encourages reflection during a lecture, lesson, or seminar.  It creates a virtual space where people can interact with material on a different level – particularly people who aren’t typically agressive engough to raise their observations when using other group learning tools like small groups.  Try it, you’ll like it – oh, and feel free to tweet during my sermons, I’ll even give you a hashtag to follow – #WezloSermons.

There, have fun – start tweeting.

A Legend Passes

I’m Philly, born and bred – it’s my cultural identity.  A huge part of that cultural core of my being is a passion about sports – Philadelphia is simply the greatest sports town in the nation.  End of story.  Every generation of Philadelphians has a set of characters which drew them into the sports lore of our beloved city (many of whom we booed at one point, they deserved it).  To say that my generation is no different than those of our parents would be to tell a lie.

We had Harry Kalas.

It’s difficult to describe just how deeply the voice of Harry Kalas is ingrained into the psyche of this city.  Most Philadelphians will do two impersonations.  The first is Rocky.  The second is Harry Kalas.  His voice was perfect, grace poured from his lips like fine wine from a bottle.  If you say the phrase “outta here” anywhere in the Delaware Valley people immediately know who you’re referencing.

As I was growing up, much of my summer was spent with my cousins splashing around in our grandfather’s pool.  We’d play whiffle-ball, have “biggest splash contests,” shuck corn, and play jailbreak for hours on end.  The soundtrack for our summer fun was the voice of Harry Kalas.  I can’t number how many times my head broke the surface of the water only to hear Harry utter something along the lines of, “The three-two pitch to Schmidt.”  It was like he was just another member of our family.  If Harry wasn’t calling a game when we were out playing around, it just didn’t seem right.

I actually remember the first time I consciously realized just how deeply Harry Kalas’ voice was implanted in my head.  Prism was running a movie entitled Running on Empty that starred Judd Hirsch from Taxi.  It was a movie about a couple who were on the run from the FBI for actions they’d taken to protest the Vietnam War, and it took place in the Philly area.  Towards the end of the movie a radio was playing in the background and, as it was summer, the film-makers rightly made sure that it was Harry Kalas’ voice emmenating from the speakers.  I remember realizing at that moment that not everyone got to listen to Harry Kalas call a baseball game over the course of the summer months, and I felt fortunate that Harry really belonged to us.

Today, that wonderful voice fell silent.  The voice that defined professional baseball for at least two generations of Philadelphia fans will never call another game, will never shout “outta here” with the excitement and energy that belonged to an eight year old, will never narrate another summer drama.  He is gone.  I got the call from a friend around 2:00 and all he could say was, “Harry Kalas.”  He couldn’t bring himself to finish the sentence, but he didn’t have to, I knew – and I couldn’t believe it.  It takes a while for the emotional force of the finality of death to hit me, part of that is probably the frequent pastoral call to be present for people following a death, but I was immediately stunned.  It was during the broadcast of today’s game where the finality of Harry Kalas’ death hit me. There’s just no words to describe how your brain wants to re-insert Harry’s voice into the play by play.  His voice simply belongs there.  I shed my first tears this evening when I watched our local PBS station play a “local legend” special about Harry Kalas.  It really started to hit home.

I feel privileged to have had him define a sport for me, and I’m so very glad that Harry got to finally call a Phillies World Championship live, since in 1980 the local guys were shut down for the Fall Classic.  I’m glad we got to chant his name during the parade, and that he lived long enough to see the players get their due at the ring ceremony on opening week.  It’s almost as though his mission was complete, and so he was called away.  The poetry of the timing fits that thought anyway.

So we have a city in mourning, and Harry leaves behind a wife and grown children who lost more than a phantom family-member.  As the city grieves, don’t forget those he held dearest in his heart.  They feel  the truest grief.

The Phillies did the right thing in playing their game today, and the broadcast team showed them selves to be true professionals both in how they paid tribute to Harry and how they expressed their emotions (Larry Anderson, you have a huge heart).  You guys are class all the way.  Churches (like the one I pastor) often experience grief like this and use it to lock themselves down in order to hold on to the dead and gone.  The Phillies chose the better route, they chose to carry on Harry’s work – rather than give up and say, “It’s not the same.”    When they played today, the Phillies helped an entire city grieve – and I thank them for it.

Goodbye Harry, I’ll always hear you calling the last out in 2008 in my head – you declared us winners again.

Talking Genesis with Peter Enns

I’m in a familiar place, McInnis Auditorium, getting ready for Peter Enns to start his talk on Genesis and the Ancient Near East context.

I already had to help him get his mac working with his laptop, glad I was hear (he traded me an autograph for it).  And here we go, Dwight Peterson is doing intros.

Peter Enns is preaching a class at Eastern now… yay for my old school.

Peter doesn’t sermon paint (hee hee hee).

Four important issues in the Modern Study of Genesis:

1. Philosophy: Enlightment
   • (suspician of ecclesiastical authority)
     • Spinoza tried to undermine the Church by undermining Scripture (to free up Judaism, btw)
2. Biblical Studies: Source Criticism
   • rethinking the Bible from within
     • People began asking questions about why there seems to be different and repeated stories.
     • Source Criticism tried to explain Genesis
   • the Bible is a product of a developmental process (post-exilic)
     • The idea of one author was no longer accepted
     • The Tanakh was put together over a long period of time as traditions were passed on, and written down.
   • e.g. Pentateuch, Isaiah, Psalms
     • Pentateuch is considered to be post-exilic product (Jerome around 400 AD already had the seeds of this idea in place)
     • What people freaked out about was the idea that the Law was post-exilic “fabrication”
     • How many Isaiahs?
     • Psalms are very clear in their compiled nature (DSS have variation late)
3. Biblical Stuides: Archaeology
   • Rethinking the Bible from without
   • Comparative religions
     • similar ancient texts to stories in the Bible
     • what to do with those texts (which are invariably older)
     • Comparing religions (setting Israel in context) – we ask, “What’s so special to our book?”
4. Science: Geology and Evolution
   • Everything got re-thought
     • Geology uprooted diluvialism (my research, not his)
     • Death was around before humanity was apparently on the earth.
   • Evolution seems to displace humanity as the pre-eminent species
   • Enns is not of the opinion that Science and Genesis need to be meshed (two different genres.

Enns, “For Christians, the 19th Century was a rough century.” (paraphrase George Wills)

Problem is that Christians work from a pre-modern standpoint – and so the four points were threats that had to be held at bay.  Genesis was always the focus – all the points of modern Biblical studies start there.

Enns is putting Hebrew into it’s Semitic context (Jim, you’d like this and could probably argue with it).

Out of the Northwest Semitic Lanugage family – a direct descendant of Canaanite.

Biblical Hebrew morphs into Mishnaic – Medieval – and Modern Hebrew.  It’s not a special language it’s quite common.

Temples, priests, sacrifices (like the Biblical ones) appeared long before Sinai (and even Abraham was sacrificing on altars pre-sinai).  Israel’s format for sacrifices was not significantly different.

Prophets were found in other cultures as well, they functioned central (in the court) and peripheral (yelling from without).  Book to read Prophesy and Society in Ancient Israel by Robert R. Wilson (1984).  One thing that was unusual in Israel was the presence of central prophets who were critical of kingship (a distinct trait).

Kings were similar to ANE ideologies:

• The king as “sons of God” – mediators of the high god of the culture
• They protected the people
• They maintained justice and mercy (not abstract)
• They modeled wisdom

In their modeling they tried to desplay the presence of Gods.

Laws were similar:

Moses and Hammurabi (1700 BCE) have similarities  – case laws were very similar.  The notions of law seem to be just the way that ANE cultures worked so when Israel came along they codified laws that reflected their setting.

Genesis Issues: Creation and the Flood

Creation: Enuma Elish (discovered in 19th Century – people went ???)

• 18th Century BCE (Hammurabi?)
• Marduk as the supreme God
• numerous similarities to Genesis 1, including the division of the waters above/below and the firmament (he needs to sermon paint, he just said he should have had an image of the cosmology of the Enuma Elish on a slide – I’m happy)

Gilgamish and Atrahasis Epics (Flood)

• Numerous similarities to the Genesis flood – including the building of an huge boat (with specific dimensions – the waterproofing with tar, the release of birds, the boat coming to rest on a mountain.

What the problem?  Genesis doesn’t to be unique, and so maybe it’s not inspired.

Three Responses

• Dismissive of Genesis (”liberal” position)

Modern scholars proved that genesis is myth, and that proves that Christianity is a lie

• Defensive of Genesis (”fundamentalist” position)

Since Genesis is the world of God, it doesnt’ matter what hte ANE texts are like, Genesis is different. (they always lose, it’s not either/or)

• Synthetic (are Hegelian dialectic, arrgh arrrgh)

Genesis fully participates in the mythic context of the ANE (Ancient Near East, btw), and it is also the word of God.  They are not antithetical – and Evangelicalism is changing.

Incarnational approach to the Bible’s non-Uniqueness

Jesus is divine:human

Jesus divinity: Birth, John 1, Equality with Father, Yahweh passages, authority

Jesus humanity:  Jesus was clothed, ate, breathed, slept, spoke aramaic, had limited knowledge, share ancient perspectives?, “faulty” knowledge? (mustard seed problem)

Jesus humanity (sinless): Is the fact that he shared ancient perspectives or had limited knowledge an example of his humanity or a reference to the fact that he wasn’t perfect (and was therefor sinful)?  People freak out there.

Bible is divine:human

Bible’s Humanity – everything in it refelcts eh historical context of the events of the author’s lives.  Does that extend to: historiography, faulty science, myth?

Enns, “No, it’s not a perfect model, it’s a model – they all break down.”

Enns, “Oh, and by the way, I didn’t make this up – this is old in the Church” (umm, examples would be nice – I’ll ask that later I hope)

Crud, the Eastern guest service timed me out at an hour! Arrrgh!

We’re taking questions now.

Someone’s askng the “If evolution is true when did sin happen? question….

Enns is ok with evolution (duh?) – unfortunately no one’s been doing the project of dealing with the “when did sin/death enter into the picture?” question because people have been working from a combative question.  There is a theological problem – what do you do with NT Adam typology.

Next question: what do you do with geneaology in Enn’s synthetic (I&I) approach?

Enns:  The purpose of Genesis 1-11 is theologically set up the narrative to reveal the people who would “reverse the curse.”  He believes that Genesis 1-11 is back-written from it’s later experiences and realities.

Someone is currently asking a question that reveals how the Evangelical™ methodology is bankrupt – “If it’s myth and shares ideas with the ancient world, then how I can get anything that’s applicable to me out of it?”

Enn’s is being gentle, I’d just respond with Martin Luther…

ROFL, Enns just made an off-hand reference to Spinal Tap!

Enn’s point is that this is accomadation – God speaks in the way people speak (Calvin, “God spoke baby talk to us”), BTW, that’s a theological term with one specific definition.

I would like to take a class with Enns… he’s fun. Or maybe I’d just like to drink coffee with him and talk for several hours…

I’m going to shut down now – I’ll try to ask my question and get it on this post later…