First of all who is Crossan:

"John Dominic Crossan (b. Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, 1934) is an Irish-American religious scholar known for co-founding the controversial Jesus Seminar. Crossan is a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual and higher criticism. He is also a lecturer who has appeared in television documentaries about Jesus and the Bible. He is especially vocal in the field of Historical Jesus studies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

Then the next question what is the Jesus Seminar that he represents and does what he say really matter based on what this organization stands for:

"The Jesus Seminar is a group of about 150 individuals who include "scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religion or related fields [as well as] published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of religion",[1] founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute.[2] One of the most active groups in biblical criticism,[3] the seminar uses votes with colored beads to determine the historicity of Jesus, specifically what he may or may not have said and done as a historical figure.[4] In addition, the seminar popularizes the quest for the historical Jesus. The public is welcome to attend the twice-yearly meetings. They produced new translations of the New Testament and apocrypha to use as textual sources. They published their results in three reports The Five Gospels (1993),[5] The Acts of Jesus (1998),[6] and The Gospel of Jesus (1999).[7] They also run a series of lectures and workshops in various U.S. cities.

The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage who did not die as a substitute for sinners nor rise from the dead, but preached a "social gospel" in startling parables and aphorisms. An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God") as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.

The seminar treats the gospels as historical artifacts, representing not only Jesus' actual words and deeds but also the inventions and elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity. Unconcerned with canonical boundaries, they asserted that the Gospel of Thomas may have more authentic material than the Gospel of John.[8]

While analyzing the gospels as fallible human creations is a standard historical-critical method,[9] the seminar's premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic world view is controversial. Rather than revealing an apocalyptic eschatology, which instructs his disciples to prepare for the end of the world, the fellows argue that the authentic words of Jesus indicate that he preached a sapiential eschatology, which encourages all God's children to repair the world.[10][11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

I propose since this man doesn't believe that Jesus saves, who cares what he says.

Fundamentalism and Literalism is not a black and white issue through out the Bible. The rich man and Lazarus is a good example of some orthodox Christians that have taken the story literally and SDAs have taken it figuratively or metaphorically.

God/Jesus are not ONLY LOVE they have different facets to their personality. Jesus got angry!!! An emotion that most would not associate with Jesus. It is OK to get angry, right.

Matthew 21:12-13
12And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

To suggest that God/Jesus are none violent, is to suggest what the Bible contradicts. Heaven will be non-violent, but not until sin is eliminate.

Most importantly, we should realize that Crossan does not believe in a saving Christ.

Spot On Douglas!!

To Crossan who says "fundamentalist" are an inherent danger(his "fundamentalism" meaning basically that most any reading of scripture has a literal meaning)...I say more dangerous is the inherent danger of "unbelief" which his group expouses.

I personally prefer the "conservative" Christian label as regards scripture.

pat

PS, "The Modern Search For The Real Jesus", Strimple,P&R Press,1995. This book offers a good understanding of some of the thought processes used by Crossan and others and the historical roots of Gospels Criticism.

My favorite analysis thus far:

"I propose since this man doesn't believe that Jesus saves, who cares what he says."

"To suggest that God/Jesus are none violent, is to suggest what the Bible contradicts."

"Spot On Douglas!!"

Even if I don't agree with him about the historicity of Jesus, perhaps his definitions of literalism and fundamentalism bear more than dismissal in the Adventist context.

Or do these definitions hit too close to home?

"Or do these definitions hit too close to home?"

Or perhaps...the bankruptcy of Crossan's exegetical methods that Douglas linked to that lead to unbelief...hit to close to home for some?

Maybe Tom Zwemer's remark on the 3ABN's Satire could apply here also:

"It ranks right up there with Orthooxymoron's take on Loma Linda.

Both tell me, Spectrum is running out of substantial material in a world gone made."

I've read Crossan's book "Who is Jesus" and many others who analyze and question the historicity of Jesus and much of the Bible. Should we: believe that everything in the Bible is inspired, inerrant and infallible? Do we hestitate to ask questions about the many contradictory parts of the Bible, and acknowledge that the Gospels were not written as accurate biography but to convey a theological message?

Why are Jesus' miracles recorded in only one of the Gospels, some on two, but never all recorded by the four? Why are certain stories never mentioned by three and yet written by only one (the adulterous woman is only found in John, and that is a later edition)? Why are the birth stories completely contradictory (the family either returns to Nazareth, or flees to Egypt)?
Why do no secular historians mention Herod's order to kill all the firstborn? Or never mention an earthquake when Jesus died? Do we read all of these stories are literal events, or as metaphors explaining to later audiences the meaning of Jesus' life and death?

The literal interpretation of all Bible events have greatly enlarged the number of agnostics who refuse to read all literature, especially the oldest, just as we read the newspapers today.
For those who are literalists, do you interpret the Sumerian and Babylonian epics of Sargon (who was placed in a reed basket, rescued by a princess, and became a king) as fiction; and yet accept the very similar later story of the infant Moses as being true in every detail? Do you read the story of the flood (as told several times in the Bible) as literally true, and yet reject the stories of Utnapishtim, Atrahasis, all predating the biblical story of the flood, but recalling a flood that destroyed most of humankind? Are the biblical stories true because of inspiration, age, or ?

Fundamentalism attracts those who "want to believe" and repels those who refuse to accept, willy-nilly, without asking lots of questions. We practice the latter when we are confronted by "quick sellers" of anything with reduced prices, and have "scam-meters" to be aware of smooth-talkers. Should we not use this ability when confronted with anyone who is eager to "sell," either a religious system or to make a quick profit. The former may very well have a "prophet" (profit ?) as the incentive.

I apologize for the jaded comments, but yesterday I just finished reading "Who Watches Who Cares" about the numerous and repeated "fleecing of the flock" by the hired leaders in the SDA church. Repeatedly, and with no accountability, these scams continued and who is to say they are not continuing even today and the sheep are left to pay for their fraudulent, and even criminal behavior?

Elaine, the Bible is full of things to take literally and things to take metaphorically. Full of paradoxes, conundrums and apparent contradictions. When Christianity begins to doubt the Bible as it's main source of truth, there is chaos right behind. I know you have studied with the Jesuits, and conclusions like the Jesus Seminar are all the rage. The doubting of the substitutionary death of Jesus. Just remember, without a resurrection of Jesus, there is no Christianity. It is the one necessity. Without it we are wasting our time talking about religion of any kind, and may as well put our efforts into who can have the most fun before we all die!!!

Douglas,

Surely, you realize that many, if not most Christians, including SDAs are both fundamentalists and literalists. You recognize the many dilemmas, conundrums and contradictions within the Bible.

It is the majoring in the miraculous events, while often overlooking the timeless principles found in both the Gospels and the other NT writers, that can become obstacles to one's faith if they become predominant. Jesus and the apostles laid down principles for righteous living, and the miraculous events recorded were for audiences who were fully aware of the pagan religious that had many similar miraculous events to justify worship. The Gospel writers used these as evidence that Jesus was even superior to these pagan gods.

Is a Christian one who believes that Jesus and the NT principles should guide our lives, but that only those who believe everything as literal that is recorded there must also be accepted to be a Christian? Whether any or all of them are true, matters not at all to me, as I have one enduring principle guiding my life: God is love, and anything that does not demonstrate that characteristic is unworthy of my worship.

Elaine, I'll say it again, God is not ONLY LOVE. He is a multi faceted God as His Son is ans was on earth. To suggest literalism by some of Christ life but metaphor for other parts, is too black and white for me. Context, context, context. But to take the resurrection and turn that into a metaphor, puts your biblical interpretation on dangerous ground if that is what you and/or Crossan are suggesting. Take each miracle, each parable and study the context and what he was trying to say. I was taught He spoke as he did so they wouldn't kill him sooner, don't know if the Jesuits ever ran that by you or not.

Thanks for posting this. The distinctions he raises between literalists and fundamentalists is very helpful, especially for understanding the current religious and political issues facing us today. I found it telling that he didn't define who was a fundamentalist, as this is a mindset, not a particular belief or faith system. One could be a fundamentalist and be an atheist (and I'm remembering our book club selection from last month from Chris Hedges).

How about a fundamentalism which considers the teachings of Jesus to be fundamental...with the rest of scripture being contextual and historical...but not fundamentally authoritative? To be a Christian, by definition, is to be a follower of Jesus. Shouldn't the teachings of Jesus be the Christian Constitution in the same way that the U.S. Constitution is fundamentally authoritative in the United States of America? The Federalist Papers are contextual and explanatory...but not authoritative.

By the way, has anyone attended a Westar meeting? Did you wear a trench-coat and dark glasses?

Doug, you are conflating a Jesuit university education and indoctrination in Crossans' writings. The only subject of any religious significance (my degree was in organizational behavior) was the requirement to write a spiritual autobiography: a journey on how we arrived at our spirituality, whether it was atheism or Jehovah's Witness--no polemicist reasons allowed. I still feel very strongly that it should be a requirement for all candidate for a degree from a religious college--especially an Adventist one. Doesn't that make sense for a student to do introspective searching to formulate his belief system?

Unlike Adventist education, the Jesuits differ in that they require a student to question life's meaning and the purpose for one's life. In the past, questions in SDA schools have been called "heretical" and professors have lost their positions by asking such questions.

I grew up dismissing some scholarship because some folks just passed along the classic apologist line: "they don't believe like we do."

But what often lies behind the dismissal is the lack of actually reading the books; instead they just read the apologist rebuttals.

All too often - from science to scripture - we just read the apologists and the church/seminary-approved ear-ticklers without trusting God and using our minds to critically integrate our contemporary lives with the principles of scripture.

The bottom line is that there are facts and hermeneutical methodologies that have to be wrestled with by folks of faith. Folks are free to choose their method of forming a ground of faith, but questioning others for asking questions rooted in research has no Biblical basis.

On the third day, just because Peter was at the tomb and Thomas doubted the reality of a risen God in human flesh, didn't mean that the disciples dismissed Thomas or that Jesus didn't deign to provide evidence.

I have too many friends who are tired of the old pat answers to their questions and leave because of the defensive intellectual climate.

As my Walla Walla, London School of Economics, UCLA Law School grad friend said today after I reminded him of the time that he came back from a PMC sermon with three pages of logical fallacies and sloppy history. "I did that three more times with sermons and than quit going." But hey, at least he hasn't read Crossan. . .

There are just too many floating factors for me to hold anyone's present balance of questions and answers as faithfully superior.

* * * * *

Here's a really good reflection on this issue of the historicity of Jesus by Phylis Tickle.

All of us who were reared in modernity and/or in the afterwash of its ways of conceptualizing, have known the impact of modernism. In few areas of life has that impact been more keenly felt by Christians than in discussions of "Jesus Studies" or, as it is sometimes more popularly known, of "the quest for the historical Jesus." That is to say that many of the intellectual tools and much of the sophisticated technology of modernity, in addition to its conceptual principles, a lot of brilliant thinking, and a world's worth of patient research, have been brought to bear over the last century or so on the study of just who Jesus of Nazareth was.

The bulk of the questions have focused upon what he supposedly did and/or did not say and upon whether or not he was or was not accurately portrayed by those who became the church. Those questions have assumed from the start that the Jesus of the canonical gospels might well be a man-made or human-shaped figure different from the actual or historical creature who at one time lived among us. Working from that assumption, it should be no surprise that the Jesus who has emerged from all of this professional scholarship and lay furor is as multiform and various as the scholars and concerned laity who have engaged the quest. The end result, in fact, of our dozen or so decades of scratching through history is such a multiplicity of Jesuses that one has to say, "Whoa! Let's just hold up here a minute and think this thing through a bit more clearly."

Story, perhaps, is better than intellectual argument in this kind of process. Accordingly, I wrote a small story some months ago, one that I want to re-run here today. I do so, of course, with apologies to those who may have heard it before, but also in the hope that even they will find it to be worth a few minutes this summer Sunday morning.

Here's the story.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/07/a-crash-course-in-jesus-h...

Orthodoxymoron--You asked about a fundamentalism where only the teachings of Jesus were considered fundamental. If I understand correctly, the definition offered here of fundamentalism is that it's essentially saying that my understanding of truth and the way to live life is THE only way to understand truth and live life. Now, as a Christian, I obviously have found a path that makes sense to me and seems to hold the most truth (of course being raised in a family and a culture that values this path makes a big difference in terms of the odds of my finding it acceptable), or I wouldn't be here, but that's a far-cry different from saying that if you don't believe as I do you are not just on a less-than-ideal path but actually wrong, anti-God or an evil person.

But even if we were to take your proposition a step further, there actually are quite a few views on Jesus and his teachings all with good scholarship and theology behind them. (Just taking a look at the quite different views of Jesus presented by the four different Gospel writers who are canonized--not to mention those who aren't--is a good way to see how complex this can get.) Also, are we following the religion of Jesus or the religion about Jesus? They really are quite different and often those differences account for much of the difference of opinion between different types of Christians. The problem of co-existence still comes when an individual or group says that their way is the only right way and that we might all be better off without those who disagree.

We must have posted at the same time, Alex. That story you link to nicely illustrates what I was attempting to say about how complex just the views of the canonical Jesus can get.

On a posting role with Daneen, I see!

It's interesting to see folk's morality spelled out as in when one argues that if a person doesn't believe in Jesus than they might as well "put our efforts into who can have the most fun before we all die!!!"

But this is at the level of a child who thinks, when mommy isn't looking, it's okay to punch my brother and stuff my face with cookies.

The point here, addressed also by Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment reveals a problematic morality: someone is unselfish and moral because of what it does for them, rather than out of a deep love for (God's) others.

History is full of highly moral non-believers and the reverse.

When someone asks: if God doesn't exist than what's keeping me from doing exactly what I want to do? It seems that their motivation is at least not sole or superior to one who says: I care because it's just the right thing to do.

Of course there are big philosophical foundation questions here that need to be flushed out, but is there any warrant for suggesting that a single belief grounds morality, even in Adventism?

"I grew up dismissing some scholarship because some folks just passed along the classic apologist line: "they don't believe like we do.

"But what often lies behind the dismissal is the lack of actually reading the books; instead they just read the apologist rebuttals.

"All too often - from science to scripture - we just read the apologists and the church/seminary-approved ear-ticklers without trusting God and using our minds to critically integrate our contemporary lives with the principles of scripture."

Alex, no truer words were ever said. Dismissing honest questions with such a "put-down" not only destroys confidence in leaders, but also doubts of our own faith.

Those who too readily have answers usually have not read or listened to the questions. If we are responsible for our own future, it is incumbent upon each of us to wrestle with, and be aware of the multiple questions raised by reading Scripture.

Alex, I think the concerns your readers are expressing should be taken seriously, given that the person you've chosen to feature, John Dominic Crossan, rejects the divinity of Jesus and believes that Jesus' body was eaten by wild dogs.

It may be helpful for everyone to know whether you, as Spectrum online editor, at least believe Jesus was the divine Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God. That could help put people at ease.

Andy

Andy, why the need for personal confession of faith? Shouldn't that be a deeply personal sentiment and not publicized?

This blog, as I assume, is to be a showcase for the multitudinal opinions in the religious world, not an apologist for one particular religious system. True, it is by and for SDAs, but to help us get out of the closed society of that one denomination and understand the swirling channels in the religious world today.

If one desires only the official SDA comments, with a heaping of bias, one can always limit their reading to the Review or the local union reporter. Most of the Spectrum's readers wish to know and understand the opinions, discoveries, and how and what people are thinking and discussing apart from their own small environment.

The announced availability this Thursday of viewing online the book of Psalms and Mark from the Codex Sinaicticus should be of interest to all those desiring to know and read this fourth century manuscript so long hidden from view.

We need to get out of our self-made shells and communicate; but first, we need to keep abreast of what others are thinking, writing about, and can aid us in our understanding.

Hi Andy--always good to see your name here. I just thought I'd point out that there are actually several Spectrum online editors who work collaboratively as a team; Alex is the blog editor (there's a Sabbath School editor, Cafe Hispano editor, Interviews editor, Reviews editor, Forum editor, overall editor, as well as creative/tech support). Alex deserves serious kudos for starting the Spectrum blog in its first incarnation and for having the vision for this new site which functions like an open community where everyone is able to join the conversation. You can read about the rest of the team under the About Us link at the top of the page.

I am a bit uncomfortable with trying to put anyone to some sort of orthodoxy test. I'm speaking just from personal feelings here, as I'm quite sure Alex's beliefs would make you quite comfortable. I think it's possible to feature an aspect of a thinker/preacher/scholar/lay person without necessarily having to endorse that person's entire worldview or belief system. We commonly do that in sermons where we pull in a snippet here or there from recent studies or inspirational writers/speakers who made a great point that we want to build off of, but that does not mean we endorse everything he/she has ever written or said. I understand that a line obviously has to be drawn, but we often err on the side of rejecting people too quickly. In this instance, the points John Dominic Crossan makes about the difference between literalism and fundamentalism and the question of violence facing Christians are very good starting points for a discussion. Perhaps his views on the resurrection may come into the discussion, but I have a hard time seeing how they should compel us to outright dismiss his thoughtful reflections.

I listen to and read a lot of information about the historical context of the Bible right now. I realize that some of what I'm reading comes from someone who doesn't leave room for inspiration/miraculous happenings, but that doesn't mean I don't still get a great deal from his scholarship.

Andy,

These sorts of questions are fine, as I believe both, although they do show a lack of engagement with the real point of what Crossan discusses in the video I posted above. But thank you for your concern for the sensitivities of Spectrum Blog readers. : )

Let's flush the reasoning out. Crossan is not addressing the questions you raised in the videos I posted. Do we dismiss climate science or an ethical goal because a researcher or theorist has different beliefs?

This sort of - can you believe they believe (find evidence) for this or that? - rhetoric is very common in our church from Samuel Koranteng-Pipim to our hit and miss history of purging Adventist theology departments.

But all too often, in part due to our short attention spans and popular anti-intellectualism, we just rely on second hand reports (and wikipedia) and judge each other via proxy.

Often this fear shuts us from having open discussions about how we "believe, behave and belong" for fear that someone might accuse us of not being a true enough Adventist. But I want to ask myself: if I really believe what I do about violence and God in human form as reported in Scripture, what does that mean for me in my life today?

Every theologian and philosopher I've read has a mix of warranted and unwarrented ideas. I blog because I believe that truth will out and that mature adults, especially in the Adventist academic community, should have a place in our church to have open discussions about serious issues. As you know, there are plenty of mushy middle Crossan or peace and social justice free forums in the church.

Beyond the IBMTE-esque, gate-keeping binary statements, the real sanctifying work lies in determining what the totality of our beliefs actually mean, particularly in the light of our faith, good thinking, and our ethical duties.

It gets even more interesting when we take our GC/salvation history seriously and note that Jesus was killed as well as hundreds of thousand of Christians for merely sounding heterodox to the religious leaders of their day. Of course, "what do they believe?" questions don't imply lack of faith and fear-based expulsion, but it is interesting that in a discussion of fundamentalism, personal beliefs are questioned, by the editor of an independent magazine.

However, let's not forget to ask the questions, like Crossan does above, about the relationship between fundamentalism and violence and how we read texts, which is the subject at hand.

Since I took the time to reply, I'd love to know what you've thought about Jesus' teaching and example of non-violence and the stories of divine-command genocide? And even more relevantly in light of the Adventist Rwandan mass-slaughter and Lowell Cooper's sermon that mentioned the lack of literacy among the majority of Adventists in the 2/3rd worlds, and Jan Paulsen's recent statements about non-violence, how might a believer root consistent beliefs about a non-violent, non-combatant Jesus as the divine Son of God (and the pre-Constantine witness) and the Bible as the Word of God?

Daneen, thanks for your message. It's true that anyone and everyone can be quoted/featured, but we're talking about someone (Crossan) whose Jesus Seminar organization strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith--denying the divinity of Christ. I join others here in not beginning to understand why Crossan would be featured. (I'm writing not as Adventist Today editor but just as a surprised visitor to your site.)

I truly think it would be helpful for readers to know that, on a Christian site, those leading out at least believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God. It should always be a privilege to declare personal faith in Christ.

Andy

I'd agree that it's a privilege to declare a personal faith in Christ, but that's still quite different from having it essentially demanded of you as justification or in defense of something. I'd like to think that I could have a very spiritually profound and rewarding conversation with Crossan about Jesus and how to follow his example, even though we might differ on how we view Jesus' divinity. Maybe I'm unusual here, but I don't feel threatened by the Historical Jesus Seminars. I've read a few of these scholars (Borg the most), and while I don't always agree with their specifics, I still find myself moved and pushed to do more about how my belief in Jesus transforms my life.

I was actually introduced to the work of this group of scholars at an Adventist Sabbath School class (in a very respected church). They were using Marcus Borg's work to help further their own study, and it was a very positive experience for me to see this modeled: we can find value in someone's work, thoughts, reflections (this particular clip Alex chose to post is a great example), even if some of their conclusions aren't ours. So I don't think it's at all unreasonable to introduce Crossan in this context. The questions he raises, particularly about how Christians view/respond to violence are very applicable, especially considering the religious overtones of much of the conflict in the world today.

Did you see the film club from last month, Jesus of Montreal? I highly recommend it (it's an older French Canadian film). The premise is that the a new version of the Passion Play has been commissioned. The actors start reading scholarship on Jesus (very similar to Jesus Seminar type publications) and they write a play that reflects the questions and doubts as well as the grace and faith. It of course scandalizes the official hierarchy, yet crowds of people are flocking to it, finding Jesus in a whole new context--a context that rejuvenated faith, even the actors' faith (whose lives started to mirror Jesus and his disciples). Somehow the transformative power of Jesus, his sacrifice, and his message transcended any discrepancies about particular beliefs.

The question posed by Andy seems no different than one asked in another thread (Digesting...) regarding the original poster’s worldview or presupposition. The response, in my mind, was honest and refreshing which is much appreciated as far as this blogger is concerned.

Putting my own thoughts into words is always a struggle for me so that I've made it a habit to keep a mental list of those who've said it much better than I. Here’s one I just received from CT which seems appropos:

'Lewis has taught me a style of approach that I try to follow in my own writings. To quote William James, "… in the metaphysical and religious sphere, articulate reasons are cogent for us only when our inarticulate feelings of reality have already been impressed in favor of the same conclusion." In other words, we rarely accept a logical argument unless it fits an intuitive sense of reality. The writer's challenge is to nurture that intuitive sense—as Lewis had done for me with his space trilogy before I encountered his apologetics. Lewis himself converted to Christianity only after sensing that it corresponded to his deepest longings, his Sehnsucht .'

- How C. S. Lewis has shaped my faith and writing.
Philip Yancey | posted 7/22/2008 08:41AM

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/25.62.html

Great quote, Joselito. Thanks for sharing it. It feels true intuitively and logically ; ) Philip Yancy's writings tend to always reach me in my deepest parts mainly because he is so honest about his own doubts. He has often said that his role as a writer is that of a pilgrim, not a pastor, and when his publishers have asked for a pastoral book, he's told them no. His gift is share his deep longings, fears, hopes, and questions.

Thanks for posting these video clips by Crossan.

Whether or not we agree with Crossan's theology, as one of the most prominent scholars of the life and significance of our Christ Jesus, we cannot tidily ignore his contributions to the Christian faith today. Anyone seeking to avoid engagement with ideas and traditions other than his or her own would do well to shun the internet!

Conversation would be extremely limited if we only spoke to or about persons with whom we shared all beliefs, even if we simply demanded the exact articulation of our beliefs of persons in order to converse with them. We would likely be unable to talk with anyone other than our own selves! I like to think that my own faith is strong enough to appreciate wisdom from many sources, not limited to my own traditions.

I find it interesting that Andy asks whether Alex "at least believe[s] Jesus was the divine Son of God and that the Bible is the Word of God" not as himself but as the Spectrum "online editor." Is Alex to have different beliefs for his job than his life? Is the expectation that his personal beliefs and life are somehow part of the job he does on the blog? Can we not tell a tree by its fruits?

I for one am more interested in what all of us together on this blog can do to work on that "at least" part: taking our beliefs in Jesus and the Bible and building FROM them into the world, instead of simply circling around them.

The words which are printed in red letters in a red letter edition of the Bible are fundamental. This, I suppose, is a more refined fundamentalism of sorts, but without all the negative baggage. When the word “fundamentalism” is used, many people think of militants marching in the streets shouting slogans, waving flags, and brandishing grenade launchers! One gets the picture that a fundamentalist is interested only in teaching and enforcing…not reasoning and learning.

On the other hand, isn’t it important to have a basic formulation of truth, including psychology, ethics, and spirituality? It is impossible to properly play a baseball game without rules and referees. It is also impossible to properly live life without a basic system of psychology, ethics, and spirituality. Ideally, the standard should be historical, include the essentials, and exclude the non-essentials.

The Constitution of the United States is a very simple and concise document. In fact, it is mostly structural and procedural in nature. On the other hand, the Christian Constitution, if you will, has historically consisted of all 66 canonical books of the Bible, with all words carrying equal weight and importance. This has created legion numbers of theologies and churches. It has been a Weapon of Mass Confusion! A real Loose Canon! Excathedra proclamations have been necessary to maintain ecclesiastical law and order. Atrocities have even been perpetrated against those with differing convictions. Evangelism has been conducted with the torch and the sword, in God‘s name. If you can’t convince them…torture and kill them...

Liberalism has sought to abort these exegetical monstrosities and diabolical administrative practices, but all too often destroys the mother instead. The whole Bible is often mockingly rejected privately, while being publicly damned with faint praise. It is reminiscent of drilling a hole in your own lifeboat!

Fundamentalist Christians and Evangelicals have labored valiantly to maintain the doctrinal integrity of all 66 books in a harmonious unity. This only works if there are strong, charismatic leaders who accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, get rid of Mr. In-Between, and all those who dare question the authority of the church hierarchy and it‘s interpretations and applications of scripture!

Put bluntly, I believe that the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus Christ are fundamental, and that the rest of scripture is important, but NOT fundamental. It is contextual and illuminating, but not authoritative. Is that heresy? To Churchianity…yes. To Jesus Christ…no. Who’s side are you on? I have decided to follow Jesus. Choose you this day who you will serve.

For those who wish to be protected, or protect "the children" from any opposing view of Christianity, they should retreat to a cave, avoid the internet and stop reading all books, other than fundamentalist apolgetics, and newspapers.

Today, there was a report on the NYTimes of the release on Thursday, July 24, of the book of Psalms and Mark from the oldest extant manuscript: Codex Sinaicticus, which could greatly aid in our understanding of Scripture in that period. Incorporated are the Epistle of Barnabas, and Hermes; evidently deemed Scripture in that century. Never before has this been available to the general public, and is a most important event in both Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

Mature Christians (self-defined ?) should os so fragile will not last long unless still clothed in swaddling clothes. When is a Christian strong enough to be exposed to opposing views?
How will defend your faith if never confronted or questioned?

Andy--it's pretty bold to demand that someone (especially the editor of this blog) confess to a particular belief in what seems like a "better believe or else" scenario. To Alex's credit, he didn't get upset like I might have but answered you in detail. However, your response didn't answer Alex's question about your thoughts on the original intent for this post (how to Christians respond to violence and the seeming contradictions between a God of violence and the non-violent God image we're shown in Jesus), and I know I'd love to hear your thoughts. Given that you've challenged someone's personal faith walk in a public forum, it seems a small thing to ask.

Part of faith in God/Jesus is that He/They are in control and certainly wouldn't allow something called the "Word of God" to have 4 or 5 key missing parts for centuries of the world's history. But Elaine, I haven't studied next to the Jesuits to know their motivation. ;-}

Speaking of Philip Yancey, and since I receive CT e-mail direct, here's a portrait of him by a colleague of his at CT. The latter tells how Yancey stripped himself of fundamentalism and describes the theme of his writing.

"If I have told you something you did not know, then I have done my job, and I am happy. Not Philip. He writes to heal. He has reclaimed the original kernel of his fundamentalist past—Good News to suffering and lost people—and is determined to get the message across."

-The Healing Pen
Philip Yancey writes to save his past—and others' futures.
Tim Stafford | posted 4/29/2008 08:25AM

Violence, all of a sudden non-violence is a measure of "how Christian" someone is. How do you think the Kurds feel about America and maybe Christianity to see Suddam put to death after their people were gassed. Violence isn't the issue. There is a time and a place for everything under the sun. Elaine, if someone was trying to do violence to you, wouldn't you wish me to "exceed" his violence to protect you, wouldn't that be the "loving thing to do"?

Alex, personally, I think it was a bit of a stretch to use Crossan's piece to get to a discussion on fundamentalism and literalism when you admit in an above post you disagree with his conclusions about the historicity of Christ. I think you may have brought some of this latter discussion on your self. ;-0

" But Elaine, I haven't studied next to the Jesuits to know their motivation. ;-}"

My sympathies that you were not a beneficiary of such wonderful education for which the Jesuits have been know for five centuries. To disabuse you of their educational system, they do not, unlike Adventist's educational institutions, indoctrinate into the Catholic or any religion. They are known for their critical thinking and skills taught to all their students, and to form their own opinions, not a church position.

Unless such expression is intended in satire, there is much more indoctrination encountered in SDA educational systems than the Jesuits.

What evidence do you present that: "Part of faith in God/Jesus is that He/They are in control and certainly wouldn't allow something called the "Word of God" to have 4 or 5 key missing parts for centuries of the world's history."

Presumably, you have studied the formation of the canon and the many changes, corrections, emendations, and additions in the manuscripts before final canonization. That is a complete study in itself.

Friends:

Before things get non sequitured any further (and I'm sorry if I've thrown off the culture and traditions here), please note that I was only suggesting--given the blogger's choice to feature a man known rather widely for denying the resurrection of Christ--that the blogger might want to affirm belief in the divinity of Christ.

(Alex himself has come onto atoday.com quite regularly to critique our bloggers, so I thought it might work both ways.)

I didn't realize that belief in the divinity of Christ was such a sensitive point here. All the best.

Andy

Andy, surely you would agree that any message could, and should be debated; however, the messenger is off limits for good and healthy discussions.

Perhaps you were involved with debate teams in high school or college? This is the first message given to everyone: attack the message, but not the messenger. As a matter of fact, students are given the subject, and within 30 minutes of the formal debate, they do not know yet which side they will take! This prompts them to thoroughly be conversant with both sides. Always good practice for any subject under discussion. (As a judge for such debates, this was always explained prior to the debates.)

The Atoday blog site is most confusing. After registering and commenting for several weeks, the suddenly ask for registration again! Even as a subscriber and donor for many years, it is quite frustrating!

:)

I hope that when we reference Gandhi here (who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus), but did teach us, including Martin Luther King Jr. a few things about non-violence, I hope that we won't get ol' AT man poking around wondering which of the 28 we're not up on today.

Andy, did you watch the videos before you first commented? Perhaps Crossan and Gandhi do have something to teach us about non-violence and religion, beyond their soteriological views.

Also, Andy, you make a false accusation, although I'm sure that it's merely a slip. I've only commented on the substance and topic of the posts there. I have never questioned anyone's fundamental beliefs. But even if I had, in what mature moral framework does the "but he did it first" claim justify any action.

Also your final sentence misses the point. It's not the subject, but the tactic.

I don't mind testifying to my beliefs because I'm happy in my faith and do believe that Jesus saves and the Bible is God's revelation, but it is a sorry state for independent Adventist journalism when the editor of Adventist Today starts mixing competition with personal and very public doctrinal inquisition.

Adventists today should know that at least here with Spectrum, you don't have any editors or bloggers who publicly quiz others about their doctrinal state because they reference a non-believer. If you kinda agreed with Christopher Hitchens on that post about torture - we won't ask you if you're actually an atheist like ol' Hitch.

And finally, while I don't have the temerity to go around speaking for someone else's commenters, I do answer questions, particularly on the substance of the discussion, which, after two subsequent posts - as several readers have noted - you have not.

When commenting on several topics, I have indicated a red-letter bias. There has been almost no response regarding this important issue. But I have been repeatedly taken to task for being a smart-alec.

Mea Culpa! I can't help it. I've tried to change. I've even prayed about it. Nothing works. Guess I was born that way. And Jesus loves me anyway! But everyone else thinks I'm an...never mind...

Seriously, isn't John Dominic Crossan taking a red-letter theological position in this video? He obviously has a problem with the God in the Old Testament and Revelation.

Orthodoxymoron (great name btw):

I think that you're on to something here. Are you familiar with the group the Red Letter Christians? They have made a similar argument that beyond the words, in Christ as God incarnate, we have a fuller revelation of the Word.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.redletterchristians

Alex:

I'm reading 'Red Letter Christians' by Tony Campolo. It's a 'citizen's guide to faith and politics'. It's mostly a political book. I generally agree with Tony, but the book contains very few of the actual words of Jesus. Also, Tony does a pretty good job of clobbering people who disagree with him. He has a take no prisoners approach. I guess I'm looking for an exegetical and pastoral approach.

It looks like the link is to the Sojourners web-site. Jim Wallis is associated with this. They are good folks, I think...but Desire of Ages, Christ's Object Lessons, and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing have spoiled me! Do these works get presented in evangelistic meetings?

I'm kind of venturing forward with fear and trembling. It's so easy to get on a high-horse and become dogmatic. Of course, if you don't stand for something...you tend to fall for anything...

It's tempting just to say, 'this is what I think.' But there has to be a historical/theological/philosophical/ethical foundation which also happens to be true and that actually works. Otherwise it's just a free-for-all of opinions and egos. Mostly delusion v delusion. And I really believe that there is a great controversy between Christ and Satan, and that we are in the middle of this bloody(literally) battle...and that the historical aspects of this universal power struggle are extremely important.

Alex, you "insult" is not well taken:

"But this is at the level of a child who thinks, when mommy isn't looking, it's okay to punch my brother and stuff my face with cookies."

The Resurrection of Christ, making Him God, is basic to Christianity. Berkeley shouldn't take that out of you, or you give the impression it has. Without the Resurrection, we can all just go "evolve" and turn to dust when we die. I never put my comments on a cookie or punch in the face, trying to get by with something basis, it was a serious, nothing matters of a heavenly, spiritual basis, if the Resurrection didn't happen, and asking if you believe in it, sorry Elaine, isn't out of line for the debaters. Not when salvation, by it's very definition, is at stake.

Elaine, liberalize Christianity all you want, the Resurrection doesn't liberalize!!! I'm with Andy on that point.

One can be a fundamentalist and non violent. I brought up about Calvin's hand in Servetus's death, only to be told by some, that was the way back then. WOW!!! Then Daneen and Alex, want to modernize us, and try and say violence is now the new measuring stick, it isn't. Elaine, you still haven't answered my question about violence to protect. I personally believe as individuals living in America, you can't now say, non-violence is the new standard. Visit the Tomb of the Unknown, wipe your tears away, then lets talk!!!

I couldn't help cutting and pasting Pat Travis' quoting of the following verses into this thread:

"Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." 1 Cor.15:12-19.

It nearly took my breath away reading the passage!!!!

OK, Alex, now, where do you stand on the issue? ;-}

So what's with the Inqisition?

Let me remind anyone who cares about the Lordship of Christ that there is one final quiz question, and you can find it in Matthew 25: "Did you take care of the hurting?" That's it. Period.

By the way:

My own respect for Matthew 25 is premised on...the Resurrection. But neither I nor Ellen White nor any other thoughtful reader of the Bible will be surprised if some people who show up on the Other Shore didn't have all their doctrines straight.

Surely no one on this thread thinks you can be saved by orthodoxy! True orthodoxy helps orthopraxy, so I do think doctrine matters, and I do think the Resurrection matters. But orthoPRAXY is the POINT!!

Refute that!

(Sorry. Just trying to get into the spirit of things.)

"For whatever is born of God... (orthopraxy)overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 And who is the one who overcomes the world, BUT HE who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood...10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne concerning His Son. 11 And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life...(or orthopraxy)"
1 Jn.5:4-6;10-12.

So Chuck, How do those Sabbathers who have not Christ(need Him maybe only) overcome and have eternal life?

I am "hurting" because of the unbelief of "maybe Christ." How will you heal my hurting Chuck? Will Christ ask that?

pat

Chuck

Might Crossan not describe you as a biblical literalist?:-)

Crossan, however, seems more concerned with fundamentalism, right? I haven't read any of his works, but watching the video leaves me the impression he's a likeable and sincere person.

About fundamentalism, not Crossan, a NT scholar, but Peter Berger, a sociologist of religion, I believe, has something more substantive to say about the subject.

A recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public, for instance, featured Berger as main speaker. “Would my moral convictions change if I woke up tomorrow as an atheist?” he asks. His main concern is to find a middle ground between fundamentalism and relativism. Here's part of the transcript so you get the flavor of the conversation.

“Under modern conditions, where almost everyone lives in communities in which diversity has taken the place of consensus, certainty is much more difficult to come by. Relativism can be described as a world view that not only acknowledges but celebrates the absence of consensus. So-called post-modernist theorists like to speak of narratives and, in principle, every narrative is as valued as any other...

“Fundamentalists respond to the same situation of certainty-scarcity by seeking to regain absolute certainty about every aspect of their world view. No doubt is permitted. Whoever disagrees is an enemy to be converted, shunned or, in the extreme case, removed. The last two centuries of history have made it very clear that there are secular as well as religious fundamentalisms. Both relativism and fundamentalism threaten the basic moral order without which no society, least of all a liberal democracy, can exist: relativism because it makes morality a capricious game, fundamentalism because it balkanizes society into mutually hostile camps that cannot communicate with each other.”

- Between Relativism and Fundamentalism: Is There a Middle Ground?

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Washington, D.C.
Speaker:
Peter Berger, Director, Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs, Boston University
Respondents:
David Brooks, Columnist, The New York Times
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Studies professor, George Washington University

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=172

Joselito,

On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”
41 Others said, “He is the Christ.”
Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the PEOPLE WERE DIVIDED BECAUSE OF JESUS.

Jn.7:37-43

PS. Nothing wrong with division...in fact it may be admirable as it is honest and says we embrace certain things as truth...but there is something wrong with killing those who disagree with us is my point.

Joselito:

I doubt Crossan would call me a "biblical literalist." In the reading of many biblical passages, I would disappoint fundementalists. But Crossan might: I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is alive.

As for relativism, it is, in substantial part, true. But it is also a snare and a delusion. I've written a book chapter (for my forthcoming "The Promise of Peace: How and Why to Be Adventsit") called "Engaging the Other." In that chapter I try to find my own way to a middle ground with respect to relativism--a place where you embrace your convictions while remaining humble enough to listen to, and learn from, people who disagree with you.

Thanks for dropping in here, Andy--it really is most welcome. I just wanted to reiterate that the issue that I (and others) were uncomfortable with was not at all the divinity of Christ but the manner in which an affirmation of that belief was demanded of Alex. Does that distinction makes sense?

Besides Crossan's participation in the Jesus Seminars, I still think he raises a point that I'd love to see this thread come back to (and I'd still love to hear your thoughts on this): How do Christians deal with violence? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I'd like to hear more. It's not simply Crossan who makes this point, it's been a common question for centuries. How do we reconcile the view of a violence, wrathful God in the OT with the non-violence of Jesus, who is supposed to be our best revelation of God? The difference between the view of God presented in the OT vs the NT is so profound that some groups of early Christians thought there must be two different gods. If we believe that God will eventually be violent, is there a danger of us starting to "implement his will" a bit early in the here and now towards those who seem to be out of alignment with his commands?

" Elaine, you still haven't answered my question about violence to protect."

I don't recall ever addressing Crossan's position on that.
Any sane person (may I claim that for myself?) defends himself or loved ones, and weaker ones when attacked. What does that have to do with the Jesus Seminar? Do you disagree with Crossan on his non-violent stance? On Gandhi's; on Martin Luther King's?

Daneen,

I think it more likely that true believers in Christ as Savior and Lord will be oppressed and tested by a "pluralism/inclusivist" philosophy to help create unity of a "household of faith/spirituality on earth" thinking that will make "peace possible on earth among nations." A bit like the faithful 3 being tested as non conformist in the plain of Dura.

My thought,

pat

Chuck, do you not ask questions of people you employee, of course you do, is it an inquistion. You have exagerated what we are asking of Alex. Note this quote:

"It’s something I’ve heard numerous times: “What’s important is how one lives, not what one believes.” Despite the sincerity accompanying that sentiment, it’s one that collapses under cursory examination.

GOLDEN RULE ETHICS
The sentiment immediately begs the question: “Important to whom?“ Unless the answer points beyond man and his institutions, the “rightness” of any practice—be it sexual behavior, substance use, divorce, polygamy, or even slavery—is a matter of what is legally permissible according to the prevailing winds of social convention. Without a transcendent point of reference, a society that believes in loving one’s neighbor has no authority over another that believes eating one’s neighbor is okay."

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6483

I am surprised at you as Chairman of the Board of this Organization, the loosy goosy approach to belief and faith. The above quote indicates the importance. The "inquistion" that you should do, is does the man that selects what we discuss, drinking from fouled fountains or not, IMHO.

Daneen, why the obsession with non-violence. There is a time for violence. Differing opinions about a "swat" on the back side of your infant who is out of line, to having a gun in the house to protect one self in a dangerous neighborhood. No one here is talking or suggesting gratutitous violence which I think you and Alex think is rampant among Christians, its not. But, whatever your definition is , there is a place for the proper "violence". I am perplexed by you and Alex's obsession with this. Did you visit that Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and have that cry I suggested?

Chuck said:

"As for relativism, it is, in substantial part, true. But it is also a snare and a delusion. I've written a book chapter (for my forthcoming "The Promise of Peace: How and Why to Be Adventsit") called "Engaging the Other." In that chapter I try to find my own way to a middle ground with respect to relativism--a place where you embrace your convictions while remaining humble enough to listen to, and learn from, people who disagree with you."

You aren't applying for Obama's Foreign Affairs Director are you? I hope he doesn't get shot before he understands the situation. Peace through strength at least initially in the conversation, otherwise Iran will have the upper hand and our freedoms will be in jeopardy. If Iran's talk in good faith, maybe progress can be made, but we better be ready with some missle shields (violence) until we know their intentions, and this is true of less consequential discussions IMHO.

Note this quote to contribute to the discussion of non-violence:

"Gandhian Pacifism:

Gandhi’s main argument against violence stems from the idea that it harms yourself to use violence against someone else. Think of how difficult it is for someone unaccustomed to violence to bring themselves to kill someone, even for a higher cause. Gandhi would say that this inhibition comes from a deeper understanding of an absolute moral principle. When we see the humanity of someone else, we have trouble bringing ourselves to use violence. We have to distract ourselves from their humanity to do it. The process of doing this does serious harm to our moral character (or as he would put it to our soul).

One problem is that this seems selfish. Why be concerned more for myself (i.e. my character or soul) than for those who are threatened by others? What about the souls of the violent? If I stop them from being violent, then I’m helping them have purer souls. What’s worse is that Gandhi’s own non-violent methods involved psychological pressure, which might be seen as coercion, and yet he himself said that coercing others is also wrong and fails to keep your soul pure."

http://web.syr.edu/~jrpierce/Pacifism.doc

... Now that puts a little different spin on Mr. Gandhi in my book.

All you "Red Letter Edition" people, I think someone already wrote his own Bible eliminating all His miracles that aren't in red print; his name was Thomas Jefferson, a Deist.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the main point of this post, Pat.

Douglas- I can see you must feel quite passionately about this topic. You repeatedly say that Alex and I are obsessed with this topic, but six posts in a row might point to an obsession on your part! Did you watch the videos that are the point of this post? I'm asking the question about how we feel about violence and the character of God because that's a primary point Crossan brought up as a major issue facing Christians today. Please be careful about conflating people in your comments (either a global "we" or lumping individuals together). As a member of the editorial team, I'll gently remind you of our commenting guidelines and the request to focus on the topic, not on attacking individuals. Thanks!

Douglas:

I hold to Hebrews 1:1-3, where Jesus (in contrast to earlier messengers) is said to be the "express image" of God.

That means that any genuine account of the Christian life must deal with the Sermon on the Mount, a treatise addressed precisely to the disciple community. You know what that sermon says about the Christian community's witness with respect to its enemies.

Show us, then, how your antipathy to nonviolence squares with the authority of Jesus, whose resurrection (Romans 1:1-4) established his Sonship and his moral authority over the disciple community?

I have the feeling -- this is just to be provocative, and I beg forgiveness for it -- that you reflect the Constantinian verions of Christianity that put Caesar / the flag / the empire above Christ.

Say why this is not so. Say why your position does not entail (see your comment on Gandhi) that Jesus himself was "selfish."

Or to put this another way, say how your position is Christian. I know you believe that it is, but I would like to know why.

Chuck

Chuck

Chuck,

You did not ask me but I will bite.

In the OT Israel was God’s footstool and a Theocracy. As such they used “violence” as directed by God to enforce covenant and kill other nations as directed by God.

When Christ came he had no role in an earthly theocracy. His followers are NOT to kill for the furtherance of His Kingdom of the “now and not yet.”

Yet His followers are to recognize that the “present state/kingdom of this world” does bear the sword and serves God when they punish evil doers in order to maintain a degree of order in the present age. Rom.13:1-5.

Christ’s function was to come and fulfill covenant and to become the “blood of the covenant” for forgiveness of sins to those that believe.

Judgment has only been delayed, God not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance. Those willingly refusing have the wrath of God remaining on them.

When Christ comes in the authority of God’s/His government He will destroy the wicked violently with His appearing. 2 Thess.1:5-10; Rev.19:11-16.

I realize this is too literal for you and exhibits an unloving God…But I trust His righteous judgment of love to redeem His people from the nations gathered against them. Rev.17:12-17.

Regards,

pat

‘”When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another.” Thus Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decision as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and the suffering. In that day Christ does not present before men the great work He has done for them in giving His life for their redemption. He presents the faithful work they have done for Him. To those whom He sets upon His right hand He will say, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” But those whom Christ commends know not that they have been ministering unto Him. To their perplexed inquiries He answers, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval!’—Desire of Ages pgs. 685 & 686 (Home Library Edition)

On the question of selfishness as related to Christ: I guess I have, for a long time, held the view that Jesus/God must have selfishness of some sort. At least, it makes one wonder whether the God's motivation throughout the plan of salvation is meant to be construed as entirely altruistic. We are told that God desires our companionship. Would this not qualify as a selfish motivation? Virtue of Selfishness.

I just finished listening to an interview with Crossan in connection with his latest book: God and Empire Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now (HarperCollins, 2007).

Violence by Americans through military action abroad has been promoted, according to Crossan, by modern right-wing theologians and televangelists consequent to their misinterpretation of the apocalyptic vision from Revelation.

Watch the interview with Crossan:

http://www.wpr.org/hereonearth/archive_070710k.cfm

I also browsed some chapters of his book. Fascinating read and very persuasive.

http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780060843236&WT...

http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780060843236

In this post my response will be in all CAPS to Chuck's questions of me. Chuch said:

I hold to Hebrews 1:1-3, where Jesus (in contrast to earlier messengers) is said to be the "express image" of God.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HEBREWS 1:1-3. GOD/JESUS BOTH HAVE POWERS NEITHER YOU NOR I HAVE. I BELIEVE THEY INCLUDE JUSTIFIABLE VIOLENCE AS OTHER PARTS OF THE BIBLE ATTEST.

That means that any genuine account of the Christian life must deal with the Sermon on the Mount, a treatise addressed precisely to the disciple community. You know what that sermon says about the Christian community's witness with respect to its enemies.

SORRY CHUCK, BUT I AM NOT A RED LETTER PERSON. I BELIEVE GOD IS JUST AND THAT HE/JESUS WILL USE VIOLENCE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IS ONE FACET OF GOD/JESUS PERSONA.

Show us, then, how your antipathy to nonviolence squares with the authority of Jesus, whose resurrection (Romans 1:1-4) established his Sonship and his moral authority over the disciple community?

VIOLENCE WILL BE NECESSARY FOR GOD/CHRIST TO PURIFY THE EARTH. IT WILL NOT AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED HAPPEN BY SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION OR NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SINNER. GOD/JESUS WILL DESTROY EVIL.

I have the feeling -- this is just to be provocative, and I beg forgiveness for it -- that you reflect the Constantinian verions of Christianity that put Caesar / the flag / the empire above Christ.

I DON'T NECESSARILY BUY IN TO THE MANUFACTURED "CONSTANTINIANISM" WORD/CONCEPT THAT YOU DO
I AM NOT SURE YOU CAN ALWAYS SEPARATE CAESAR/THE FLAG/THE EMPIRE/AND CHRIST. YOU SOMEHOW HAVE DONE IT. IF A TERRORIST IS AT MY FRONT DOOR, MY CHRISTIANITY KICKS IN, APPARENTLY DIFFERENTLY THAN IT DOES FOR YOU. THERE VIEW OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND WHAT TO DO WHEN THREATENED, GOT THE JEWS THE HOLOCAUST BY NOT DEFENDING THEMSELVES AS THEY SAW GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENTS. WHEN IT COMES TO TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK, I'M NOT A LITERALIST. ;-}

Say why this is not so. Say why your position does not entail (see your comment on Gandhi) that Jesus himself was "selfish."

GANDHI NEVER HAD THE POWER TO DESTROY OR BRING JUSTICE THE WAY GOD/JESUS CAN AND DO.

Or to put this another way, say how your position is Christian. I know you believe that it is, but I would like to know why.

I THINK THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS FAIRLY WELL, BUT I'M OPEN TO FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS.

P.S., I HAVE ENJOYED THE PRIVILEGE OF POSTING ON SPECTRUM, AND HOPE, DESPITE DANEEN'S "VIELED THREAT", THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE. CHRIST'S HISTORICITY IS VERY IMPORTANT, HIS RESURRECTION, AND AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE POWER GOD/JESUS HAVE TO DESTROY EVIL IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AND WHAT CHRISTIANS ARE ALLOWED TO DO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. THANKS FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT ON THESE ISSUES.

REGARDS

DOUGLAS

A QUESTION FOR ANDY NASH ABOUT "ADVENTIST TODAY"

Hi Andy!

Congratulations on becoming the new Editor of "Adventist Today." It looks to me as though the revamped journal and web site are off to a splendid start. All the best from a [usually!] friendly competitor!

I wonder if you would be willing to share with the rest of us why you published in the July-August issue of the journal under the heading of "News and Analysis" the article titled "Angels Distribute Radio to Villagers? Adventist World Radio president says he believes it really happened."

In addition, is there some reason why virtually the only question AT raised about the credibility of this report is the one asked in its title?

The appearance of this report in AT surprised me. Although I could be wrong, my acquaintace with all of them for many years inclines me to doubt that this the sort of thing that people like Raymond Cottrell, Elwin Dunn, Ervin Taylor, James Walters, John McClarty and David Newman would have published with so little analysis and appraisal.

Thank you very much for whatever help you can give my attempts to understand where AT is headed!

Dave

The story raises more questions than answers; in fact there was no exploration or substantiation other than "it happened." AToday owes a clearer and better explanation for such stories (and they are too frequently encountered in other Christian circles).

Daneen said, my words will be all CAPS again:

Douglas- I can see you must feel quite passionately about this topic. You repeatedly say that Alex and I are obsessed with this topic, but six posts in a row might point to an obsession on your part!

DANEEN, I STILL DON'T FEEL THAT ALEX HAS OWNED UP TO HIS BELIEFS IN HIS VERY IMPORTANT POSITION ON THIS BLOG. THAT IS NOT AN ATTACK, BUT LOOK AT HIS POSTS AND TELL ME WHERE HE GIVES A STRAIGHT ANSWER I THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. HE CERTAINLY HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ANSWER BUT HIS QUICKNESS TO LABEL PEOPLE ANTISEMITES OR HOMOPHOBES I THINK "DEMANDS" A RESPONSE BY HIM WHEN HE LABELS PEOPLE AS QUICKLY AS HE DOES.

Did you watch the videos that are the point of this post?

I MADE SURE I DID BECAUSE I FIGURE ONE OF YOU WOULD ASK. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. HAVE YOU READ EVERY SYLLABLE OF THE BIBLE COVER TO COVER?

I'm asking the question about how we feel about violence and the character of God because that's a primary point Crossan brought up as a major issue facing Christians today.

MY RESPONSE TO CHUCK ABOVE WAS REAL CLEAR ON THIS AND I BELIEVE IS RATIONAL.

Please be careful about conflating people in your comments (either a global "we" or lumping individuals together).

IF POSITIONS ARE SIMILAR OR THE SAME ISSUE, "CONFLATING" IS PART OF THE DISCUSSION. THE WAY A DEBATER BELIEVES IS IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT CHILD'S PLAY, OR MAKE BELIEVE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SALVATION.

As a member of the editorial team, I'll gently remind you of our commenting guidelines and the request to focus on the topic, not on attacking individuals. Thanks!

I THINK YOU MISCONSTUE ATTACKS AS YOU DO VIOLENCE AND ITS PROPER USE TO DEFEND AND PURIFY [BY GOD/JESUS]. THIS A MODERNISM PHENOME AND IS ALL THE RAGE. I KNOW OF AT LEAST ONE OTHER ADVENTIST FORUM THAT IS BASED ON "GOD IS ONLY LOVE" AND I BELIEVE GIVES THE WRONG PICTURE OF GOD AND CHRIST OUR SAVIOR AND IS MORE OF AN OVER-INTELLECTUAL APPROACH. IT RELIES ON SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION OF THE SINNER AT THE END OF THE WORLD. I DON'T BELIEVE THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT LITERALLY OR METAPHORICALLY, BUT I'M WILLING TO HEAR YOU OR OTHERS OUT ON IT.

I PERSONALLY DO NOT FEEL THAT I HAVE VIOLATED YOUR RULES, BUT IF IN ONE POST ABOVE TAKING THE NAMES OUT SO OTHER POSTERS CAN'T RECOGNIZE THE POSITION HOLDER, I GUESS THAT CAN BE DONE.

Point, I believe the the posters above discussing AToday issues should go to that site. It, IMO, derails this thread, but I'm not part of the editorial staff to enforce it, either.

Good point, Douglas.
Because of your suggestion, I have posted my questions at AToday too, under Andy Nash's editorial. Thank you!
Dave

Thanks for posting the further reading links, Joselito. I'll look forward to checking them out in the morning. I appreciate how you consistently bring more to our discussions by way of direct sources.

Douglas,

I just took off my coat and put my brass knuckles on!

A minimal amount of violence would probably be necessary in even an 'ideal' world. Self defense is an obvious example. But this stupid world has been filled with violence and atrocity for thousands of years. Often, this violence and atrocity has been connected with some kind of religion. There even seems to be a Vatican connection with Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany.

The God of the Old Testament and Revelation is extremely ill-tempered and violent. I thought that Satan was the ill-tempered and violent one? Have many, if not most Christians, been worshipping and serving the wrong God, both historically, and in modernity? Is this a subtle, but deadly, Satan worship? Is this a major reason why this world is so violent and screwed-up? Satan doesn't want a peaceful, non-violent world, does he?

The words of Jesus are very different. If Jesus was perfect...then shouldn't His words be viewed as being supremely authoritative for Christians? But Christians blew the Great Commission. Maybe many of them thought Jesus was just kidding. He belongs on the cross, right? Everyone else knows better than the second person of the Holy Trinity, right?

I'm ranting in a generic sense, and not at you personally, Douglas. This is sort of a closed-door debating society of sorts, and probably most of the participants have pretty thick skin(and thick skulls in some cases--just kidding!).

David, a religion teacher at Loma Linda University, something to do with bioethics said, and my response is in all CAPS again:

"I just took off my coat and put my brass knuckles on!

HELP DANEEN, I THINK I'M ABOUT TO BE ATTACKED!!! ;-0

A minimal amount of violence would probably

PROBABLY?!!!

be necessary in even an 'ideal' world. Self defense is an obvious example.

THANK YOU FOR FINALLY COMING OUT OF YOUR IDEAL WORLD THAT WE AIN'T.

But this stupid world has been filled with violence and atrocity for thousands of years. Often, this violence and atrocity has been connected with some kind of religion.

SO RELIGION IS THE CULPRIT, AND WE SHOULD TURN THE OTHER CHEEK AND DIE, NEVER TO FINISH OUR WITNESS, ONLY AS A MARTYR. I THINK EVEN THE JEWS, ARMED TO THE TEETH BY US AMERICANS HAVE VOWED NEVER TO PERMIT A HOLOCAUST AGAIN. PACIFISTS NO MORE!!!

There even seems to be a Vatican connection with Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany.

BUT DAVID, THAT'S THE WAY THINGS WERE DONE THEN, WASN'T THAT THE RESPONSE I GOT ABOUT THE RESPECTED CALVIN AND LUTHER?

The God of the Old Testament and Revelation is extremely ill-tempered and violent.

THESE ARE YOUR TERMS FOR INSPIRED WORDS. WOW!!!!!

I thought that Satan was the ill-tempered and violent one?

CAN SATAN BE MISCHARACTERIZED LIKE YOU HAVE ACCUSED GOD/JESUS OF BEING BY HIS OWN "WORD OF GOD"?

Have many, if not most Christians, been worshipping and serving the wrong God, both historically, and in modernity? Is this a subtle, but deadly, Satan worship?

HEY, YOU ARE THE RELIGION TEACHER, HOPE THAT ISN'T COMING OUT OF THE CLASSROOM!!!

Is this a major reason why this world is so violent and screwed-up? Satan doesn't want a peaceful, non-violent world, does he?

SIN HAS BEEN HERE SINCE EDEN. THIS WORLD HAS TO BE PURIFIED YET OF SIN, THAT WILL BE A VIOLENT ACT, NOT A SPONTANEOUS ONE LIKE SOME AROUND LOMA LINDA CLAIM.

The words of Jesus are very different. If Jesus was perfect...then shouldn't His words be viewed as being supremely authoritative for Christians?

WHAT HAPPENED TO LITERALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM AND METAPHORS??? CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!

But Christians blew the Great Commission. Maybe many of them thought Jesus was just kidding. He belongs on the cross, right? Everyone else knows better than the second person of the Holy Trinity, right?

THESE SENTENCES SEEM UNCLEAR, MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY YOUR POINT. YOU JUST JUMPED FROM A DISCUSSION OF VIOLENCE BY RELIGION TO A FAILURE OF WITNESSING ABOUT THE GOSPEL. THE GOSPEL IS ABOUT SALVATION AND ESCAPING VIOLENCE FOREVER, YOU WANT IT BEFORE ITS TIME. I'M AFRAID IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER ACCORDING TO THE WAY OUR SCHOOLS TAUGHT ME.

I'm ranting in a generic sense, and not at you personally, Douglas.

DANEEN, I MAY NOT NEED YOU AFTER ALL!! ;-)

This is sort of a closed-door debating society of sorts, and probably most of the participants have pretty thick skin

NOT ACCORDING TO DANEEN!!!!

(and thick skulls in some cases--just kidding!)."

HOPE IT IS "JUST KIDDING", PROOFS IN THE PUDDING AS THEY SAY!!!

REGARDS

DOUGLAS

David, I have to apologize, I thought I was responding to you and double checked and realized Oxy was my opponent. Sorry, so sorry!!!

As for Oxy, most of what I said still is meaningful coming your way!!

Sorry and regards,

Douglas

Douglas, this might be a good time to use the edit option on your comment.

Theory about Satan: I grew up with the idea that Satan's claim was that God's Creation didn't need His laws, that conscious entities could be happy apart from deity. (I think this is a relatively common belief, isn't it? GC, and all...). Anyway, it seems that if this world actually is a place for Satan to test his ideas, then he's going about it in a really screwy way. Especially if he really were to have as much influence in the political and natural world as people seem to think he does. If I'm Satan, I don't want any diseases. I don't want rape, or murder, or genocide, or pain in general. I want people to think they can go against deity's laws and experience no (or, at least minimal) adverse consequences. So, that means no STD's, no heart disease, no cirrhosis of the liver, no famines, no natural disasters. That right there cuts out a lot of the suffering without asking anything of human behavior (assuming, as I do not, that it would be possible to have a free natural world without the possibility of all those nasty things). One could even cut down on a lot of the human inflicted suffering with a good "counterfeit" like Buddhism or Confucianism.

All that to say, if one requires a Satan figure, then it seems that either he/she/it doesn't have the power usually accorded to it (implying it can't really be held responsible for much suffering), or it is an epic failure at rebellion and incontrovertibly stupid.

And surely God has more aesthetically pleasing ways of purifying the world. Maybe mountain scented lysol. Something more elegant and less clumsy than fire and brimstone.

Happy Tuesday.

In his God and Empire (2007), Crossan concludes that "any given religion can generate horrible violence". First he tells of Ghandi's assassination by a Hindu extremist, stating that faith-based violence met faith-based non-violence. He cites examples from other faiths, including Christianity, illustrating the same point.

When the internet was new where I lived, we followed some rules that seemed to have been generally accepted: 1) italics, bold type, or some other indicators are better for emphasis or contrast; 2) use upper case/caps for entire words and sentences only when we YELL!

Hi Douglas!

Welcome back under your new name! No problem about mixing me up with Oxy. I've done this sort of thing myself too often. It IS hard to keep everything and everyone straight.

I invite both of us to keep the intellectual temperature on this blog as comfortable as possible. That way everyone can enjoy the exchanges.

I don't yet understand the gist of your covenantal theology. I say this as a confession, not a challenge

I'm inclined to compare your views with dispensationalism; however,that doesn't seem quite right either.

If you can summarize its overall contribution in 50 words or less, I would appreciate it. With the big picture of the puzzle in view, I might be better able to fit together the little pieces.

Thanks again!

Dave

Douglas,

Thanks for taking the trouble to post answers, in capital letters, to my questions.

But if you can, for all practical purposes, dismiss the Sermon on the Mount, and if you can say that "Constantinian" is just a rhetorical ploy, how can you--and how can your reading of the Bible--provide leverage against Christian collusion with evil states? (I have in mind, of course, the Christian collusion with the the Roman Imperialists, and with the more recent Nazis and Stalinists.)

Remember that when Paul speaks of the authority of the state, in Romans 13, he also tells us, later in the chapter, that we owe no one anything except to love one another. And remember, too, that Paul regular echoes (as at the end of Romans 12) the nonviolence of the Sermon on the Mount. (For this latter point, the best single resource is John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus," to which, so you know my biases, I heartily subscribe.)

Chuck

Chuck,

Is a policeman showing "love" by protecting families from lawbreakers as they occassionally use "violence" to do so?

Chuck, I'm OK that you ignore me. My mom helped me develop a good self worth. :~)

regards,

pat

PS. From Romans 12...
"If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."Rom.12:18-21.

Is it permissable for the wrath of God to take vengence in the future?

"without a resurrection of Jesus, there is no Christianity."

Without Mohamed there is no Islam.

Without Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablets there is no Mormonism.

Without Moses there is no Judaism.

Without the Resurrection there is no Christian.

Why do you not believe Joseph Smith discovered the Golden Tablets and translated the Book of Mormon? Did you ever see them?

Why do you not believe Mohamed, did you ever see him?

Why are you not a Buddhist? Did you ever talk to the Buddha?

Why are you a Christian? Did you ever see or talk to Jesus? Do you believe that everything written about him is true?

Do you believe everything written about Buddha, Mohamed, and Joseph Smith are true? Why?

Why do you not belong to first Christian church recognized by Rome?

Choices, choices. Usually based on our place of birth and parentage.

NT Wright makes a bold claim (in Surprised by Hope) that to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is to deny Christianity (at least the biblical kind, he says). The presence or absence of Crossan, Dobson, Bono, or Winnie The Pooh is not a huge issue. We can and should learn wherever we can. In all matters grace. In all matters relationship. In most matters flexibility. But a vigorous defense of the historicity of Christ, His divinity, humanity, the integrity of the New Testmament, and the physical, bodily resurrection is imperative. It is key, interestingly enough, to a well-established orthopraxy of compassion, re-creation, love, and appropriate reverence for the physical earth and its people.

"...a vigorous defense of the historicity of Christ, His divinity, humanity, the integrity of the New Testmament, and the physical, bodily resurrection is imperative."

The inference seems to be that unless one believes that the truth of the historical narrative must be believed that such individuals cannot be Christians. The Gospels were never written to be historical or biographical records but as theological treatises with definite agenda and audience.

Not all Christians, perhaps more than are free to admit, do not read all the Gospels literally. They are able to see the timeless principles laid down and apply them in their lives today. It's the old dichotomy that only religious people can be truly moral, and yet we know that atheists and secular humanists (often the same) care for others and their planet just as much, maybe even more than Christians.

We should cease dividing the literalists and those who are able to choose life principles without resorting to the inclusive stance of limiting who is Christian. The Golden Rule, and to love one's neighbor is a far more effective way of demonstrating one's religion and way of life than an affirmation of the virgin birth, divinity, and some of other so-called important doctrines.

"It is key, interestingly enough, to a well-established orthopraxy of compassion, re-creation, love, and appropriate reverence for the physical earth and its people."

There are millions of compassionate believers of other religions and no religion who demonstrate all these traits.
To limit those only to Christians is much too exclusive: a characteristic of too many who claim that name.

An astute reader of the Bible has the ability to summarize and glean important truths and not be side-tracked by the unbelievable tales and events that are expressed by those living in that contemporary area. The Egyptians, Akkadians Sumerians, and others, all had a similar perspective and concepts of their world and wrote accordingly. No writer can mentally move to another time zone, he is bound by circumstances of his place and time. To do otherwise, is to write science fiction, or plain fiction. What we read today in the Bible is a reflection of how people thought in the ancient world.

"Messiah" in the context of the ancient world has been generically defined as "a royal person whose coming is the sign of national salvation following a crisis that is insurmountable from a human point of view." Almost all of the main characteristics of the future ideal king and kingdom in the Hebrew Bible can also be found in Akkadian literature. The royal psalms, often considered messianic psalms, are particularly rich with rhetoric that is well known from Mesopotamian literature, as well as the Neo-Assyrian prophecy texts.

No writings can be separated from the era in which they were written. An excellent and very instructional book is "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament" by John H. Walton.

Here we go again. We label something and then attack the label and not the issue.

I am a Christian and accept all that it means in redemption and in living as revealed by the canon and enlightened by the Holy Spirit and Scholars committed to bringing Hebrew and Greek to a 21st Century old man.

I understand the use of metaphors, analogies, and figures of speach.

I still believe that the Apostles Creed summarizes the essential issues qhite well.

I believe that the SDA Church has lost its bearings in its dependancy on arcane understandings of Daniel and Revelation. Even Daniel and John's bottom-line is simply "Blessed Assurance, Jesus Christ is Lord and Coming King. Praise be to God. Stop looking for the waymarks of 19th century enthusiasts. Tom