I had this idea a while ago and forgot to post it here for discussion until today. The prompt for my doing so was its appropriateness as a response for this post on Halden's blog.

Regarding the fact that 1 Timothy 2 roots its “I do not allow a woman to teach” doctrine in the creation narrative…. I had what was, for me, a bit of a brainwave the other Sunday. There’s another teaching in scripture that is rooted in the creation narrative: Exodus 20:8-11. Yet the Sabbath commandment is unique among the Ten Words in its NOT being repeated in the NT. And while our strategies may differ in how we deal with the Sabbath commandment in our lives, surely we can all agree that Moses’ idea of how to “Keep the Sabbath holy” is bound to his culture, time, and place, and is not for us today.

(This is the complete post.)

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Some thoughts on the imperfection of the scriptures

OK, I know with a title like that I should watch out for people carrying pitchforks! :)

But consider: first of all, "perfection" is relative. "Perfect" is often used to mean "complete", "not lacking in anything". Pragmatically speaking, however, we might use "perfect" to mean "entirely sufficient for ...". Notice the elipsis - the missing term. Hence the relativity of perfection; at least on this conception of perfection.

We evangelicals often throw around a handful of adjectives when we talk about scripture, and usually we don't stop to explain what we mean by them. Adjectives like "inspired", "inerrant", "infallible", "authoritative", "complete", "perfect", even "holy". When we give lectures or write textbooks, then we sometimes take a stab at defining some of these terms in reference to scripture. Textbook "infallibilists" say that scripture is "perfect", "inerrant", or "inspired", or "authoritatve", or "complete" in all matters pertaining to faith and practice. I am probably a textbook infallibilist by many people's lights. I'm willing to affirm that scripture is complete and perfect rel. to all faith (i.e., doctrine) and practice. Textbook "inerrantists" (sometimes called "fundamentalists") complain that infallibilists leave out the inerrancy and authority and perfection of scripture in all matters of history (and maybe even science?). Perhaps the idea is that if the Gospel of Luke says such-and-such was governor of such-and-such territory around the time of Jesus' birth, then this historical fact is unquestionably true. Many inerrantists might further insist that since the Fourth Gospel says Jesus cleansed the Temple close to the beginning of his three-year ministry, and the Synoptic Gospels say Jesus cleansed the Temple at the beginning of Passion Week, after the Triumphal Entry, he must have done it twice. Some inerrantists might further insist that God created all things in heaven and earth in seven twenty-four hour days. (Outside of the textbook accounts, people like me often question whether the Bible actually makes all of these factual claims -- leaving alone the "inerrancy" of what the Bible actually does claim.)

Still, I'm willing to grant significant intelligibility to textbooks' making a distinction between one group ("infallibilists") that say the Bible is trustworthy and true with regard to faith + practice only, and another group ("inerrantists") that say the Bible is trustworthy and true with regard to faith + practice + "mundane" history. Even though as a student of religions--or as a philosopher--I'm not sure what else there is to any religion -- or to life in general -- besides faith [what you believe] and practice [what you do]. I guess there's more to reality than one's life (individual or communal). And facts of "mundane history" arguably are part of the reality that extends beyond one's life.

To pick back up on my original train of thought ... "perfection" is relative. I might say (wearing an "infallibilist" hat) that scripture is "perfect" or "entirely sufficient" on all matters of faith and practice. In my saying this, I probably intend to leave room for significant diversity of opinion on many matters within the community of the faithful. Regardless of what one might think about the veracity of the Bible's many historical claims (and I do not here mean to deny them), there are many historical facts on which the Bible is silent. The socio-political history of ancient China, for example. Or the dates of all the important battles of the American Revolution. So, whether the Bible is "perfect" or not, depends on what we are asking of it. Since we don't expect an account of ancient Chinese or 18th century American history, its lacking these things does not blemish its "perfection" in our eyes. Well and good. And really, I don't know of anyone who does expect those things from the Bible (Well...unless there was someone in the 18th century that thought Revelation predicted all that would happen in the next 30-50 years??)

However, I think there are other things we come to the Bible expecting, quite often. I include myself here. It would be nice if the Bible was more helpful in our making decisions. Not just morally, but about important life issues -- like where to go to college, what to major in, what career to pursue, or whom to marry (or whether to marry at all!), for example. I have actually known people who opened their Bible and expected to find answers to these questions. I probably have been one of them. Even leaving those things aside, it would be nice if the Bible gave us clear, immediate guidance on all our moral and ethical practices. Without having to do complicated exegesis or systematic theology or Christian ethics through lenses of tradition and reason, I mean. Sadly, the Bible seems to me to be silent on important issues like abortion, torture, and universal health care. (That is, if we're not reading it and then using tradition and reason to mediate scripture and Christian ethics.) Suffice it to say -- and here is my main point in sum -- we all have questions, really important questions, that the Bible does not answer. That is, the scriptures are not entirely sufficient for our intellectual and practical lives. Even while they may be sufficient for our "faith and practice" in the textbook sense (as I here affirm). In this sense, then, scripture is woefully imperfect.

Now, there's good news and bad news. The good news is, God didn't just give us the Bible.

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." (Hebrews 1:1-4, ESV)

The perfect and complete Word of God is the Son, Jesus, the resurrected and exalted one. He is perfect as "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of [God's] nature". He is complete in that he is final -- he is the last Word of God, spoken "in these last days".

The bad news is that even having Jesus -- whether found in the pages of scripture or in the Spirit indwelling our hearts -- we are still going to have difficulty getting answers to all of our questions. Certainly many of our answers will be fallible. Thus there will continue to be disagreements among the saints. Relative to our questions, Jesus too is imperfect.

Friends, we have to learn to deal with imperfection. I guess answering all of our questions--even all of our theological and moral questions--wasn't God's purpose in communicating with us about Godself.

Still, we have this promise in our imperfect scriptures -- make of it what you will:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him." (James* 1:5, ESV)

---

* Aside: I think it is a real travesty of Anglo-dominated Western Christianity that we have forgotten the name of the brother of our Lord, which was actually the same as the birth name of Israel -- Jacob. If you didn't know, it was changed throughout the New Testament when the King James version was translated, in honor of King James himself. Any Greek text you find will still read "Jacob" -- a Hebrew name, not a Scottish one. I almost want to complain that it's anti-Semitic. At the very least, we do a disservice to the tradition of the early Church, and the memory of one of the pillars of the church at Jerusalem by mis-naming him every time we speak of him or cite the book that bears his name. IMO, it's long since time that new translations of the New Testament into English depart from the 17th century tradition of using the name "James".

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Anti-Imperialism

Halden has a couple of good posts on Christian political witness and anti-imperialism. Links below:

A Plea for Anti-Empire Polemics (1/20/2009)

"...not to say that critiques of Bush-style neoconservatism are wrong, rather it is that they are just far too easy. Any Christian critique of empire worth its salt must be able to do more than lob shots at the chicanery of the Bush administration. ... If America was an empire yesterday it remains one today despite the Obama administration’s proclamations of hope and seismic change. ... We will almost certainly see a lapse in the rush of anti-empire publications in the next few years. For far too many “progressive” Christians being anti-empire just means being anti-Bush. What is needed now, in light of the (false) hope of the newly inaugurated Obama presidency is ongoing critique of the problems of American empire."

The Ethics of Witness (2/18/2009)

"This puts the Christian in the extremely unpopular position of remaining a critic of all forms of earthly political sovereignty, even (especially?) when they seem to be becoming more morally appealing and worthy. ... What is important to note here is that the inherent antipathy of Christianity towards secular politics is not a negative reaction determined by that which it is against. It is rather the overflow of the abundant gift of life that is wrought by Christ in the resurrection."

Please go read the entire posts yourself.
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Brief Digression -- Literalism and Genesis

I'm following a series of posts on reading Genesis 2-3 (two posts so far) by "RJS" at Scot McKnight's blog "Jesus Creed" -- see link in the right-hand column of this page.

I want so share two bits of this conversation, and invite comment on related issues here (or on Facebook).

This is a list offered by one commenter of problems that arise when one attempts to read Gen 1-2 "literally".

Gen 1:

-- the universe, the earth, and life on earth were not created in 6 days. It's more like 14 billion years.

-- the earth was not in existence or in place before the Sun; the earth, like every other planet, arose through the gradual accretion of debris that coalesced over a long period of orbit around the Sun;

-- there is not and never was an expanse of waters above the earth

-- seed bearing plants were not the first kind of plants

-- the moon does not produce light

-- animals and humans were not all vegetarian

Gen. 2:

-- there was a weather cycle including rain by the time plants appeared

-- human beings did not appear suddenly out of nothing

-- the geography of the three rivers flowing out of Eden never existed (we know of two of the rivers, not the third, and they do not have a common headwater above the Persian Gulf)

-- conflict with Gen. 1: man created before animals in Gen. 2

-- male and female humans evolved together; women were not cloned from a man's rib

-- no angel with a flaming sword has yet been discovered in Iraq.

Gen. 3:

-- snakes do not talk

-- God does not walk

And this is from a comment by the same person about the complexities involved in trying to fix one meaning (rooted in authorial intent) for this text--or any Pentateuchal text:

So, I think we have multiple overlapping exegetical hermeuentical issues here:

-- what did the sources (presumably an oral tradition or traditions stretching back to Egypt and Mesopotamia) underlying Gen. 2 understand and intend those stories to mean;

-- what did the Yahwist author / community that first encoded this oral tradition "intend" Gen. 2 to mean;

-- what did the redacting community that compiled the Priestly and Yahwist traditions in Gen. 1 and 2 into a canonical text intend and understand it to mean;

-- what did the Apostolic authors of the NT literature referring to the canonical Hebrew scriptures intend and understand about their use of the Hebrew scriptures.

I would add at least one more: what did / does the Holy Spirit intend for this text to mean as inspired scripture?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that seeking out an individual, unified "authorial intent" isn't really all that helpful with this sort of text.

Here is the link to this commenter's own site (which I haven't visited, but will after posting this): http://www.tgdarkly.com/blog

What do readers think? How do you read Genesis 2-3? Do you aim to find a single meaning which is the Word of God in this text? Dr. Heth always said "one meaning; many applications", but I see difficulty in applying this to the Pentateuch or the OT in general because I'm not sure whose authorial/editorial intent counts, and I suppose that these texts were used during the canonization process to preach different messages to different situations-in-life in different generations. How can God speak to us through these texts?

Vi - a respondent on this post said (in reply to the list of problems raised by attempted literal readings of Gen 1-2) that C. John Collins' _Genesis 1-4_ seems to clear up a lot of these problems. Is this Dr. Collins a prof of yours? Not that that makes you accountable to speak for him or anything, but I'd welcome any insights you have, and I'm curious as to what impressions you formed in a Pentateuch class (assuming you took one) at Covenant.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, Articles 2 & 3: Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit

At Toledo Mennonite Church, we are spending 24 days (starting today, Feb. 9, 2009) together as a congregation studying the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, one article at a time.

For more on the Confession of Faith, including a full text, go here.

---

Here is the summary statement of Article #2, entitled "Jesus Christ". (Link to full-text):

2. We believe in Jesus Christ , the Word of God become flesh. He is the Savior of the world, who has delivered us from the dominion of sin and reconciled us to God by his death on a cross. He was declared to be Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. He is the head of the church, the exalted Lord, the Lamb who was slain, coming again to reign with God in glory.

One classic method of doing biblical Christology is to study the names or titles of Christ used in the Bible. What names does this article of the Confession call Jesus?

1. Jesus Christ
2. The Word of God made flesh
3. The Savior of the world
4. The Son of God with power
5. The Head of the Church
6. The Exalted Lord
7. The Lamb Who was slain
8. The only Foundation which is laid and can be laid
9. The Messiah
10. The Seed of David
11. Prophet of God's Kingdom
12. Teacher of Divine Wisdom
13. Faithful High Priest
14. King who chose the way of the cross
15. Servant
16. Preacher
17. Healer
18. The only Son of God
19. The One in Whom the fullness of God was pleased to dwell
20. The image of the invisible God
21. Him through Whom and for Whom all things have been created
22. Our Lord and the not-yet recognized Lord of the world
23. The One Who shall be acknowledged Lord of all
24. The Lamb of God Who will reign forever and ever

Those who composed this article of this confession consciously gave it an Anabaptist flavor, by emphasizing:

"for example, Jesus' obedience and suffering in his work of atonement, his humility and servanthood as the pathway to exaltation, the believers' experience of Christ in the community of faith, the integration of faith and ethics, and peace as central to the character of Christ."

As has come out in a couple of recent conversations with Sarah, I tend to emphasize the Lordship of Jesus. Jesus is the Resurrected Son of God, the Exalted One, the One given authority over all things, to Whom I owe allegiance. (Even while my allegiance is chosen.) This Lordship is the basis of my anti-imperialist philosophy. And it is the basis of my hope--hope for the salvation of the world and the reconciliation of all things in Christ to God. In a recent study of Ephesians I saw clearly that Jesus' exaltation and authority--and our exaltation with Him--is the basis for our doing the works God has created us, in Jesus, to do. It is the basis for our mission--love of enemy, love of neighbor, proclamation of Jesus' Lordship over a world invaded by sin, injustice, violence, and death, invitation to reconciliation with each other and with God in the new man, Jesus. It is the basis of our spiritual gifts.

What of the humility of Jesus? Jesus is "the king who chose the way of the cross". Philippians tells us to have the mind of Christ in His chosen humiliation to death. What impact does this have on my theology and practice as a Christ-follower?

I think my pacifism must be rooted in Jesus' humility. It couldn't be rooted in Jesus' authority and kingship alone--that could root a kind of Constantinianism--or perhaps Cromwellianism--just as well, by itself.

I want to be pacific in my theological and philosophical discourse (but then, was Jesus? As Julian pointed out on Sunday, Jesus was apparently not afraid to shame his debate partners). I want to be like Jesus in not stopping my pursuit of the Kingdom of God because of resistance from the world and its powers, violent or otherwise. But too often I take the path of least resistance. Procrastination, for example, is much easier than work. And procrastination does not (usually) help me advance the Kingdom of God through my relationships to others. (Well, it depends on how I procrastinate.)

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world; if it was, my servants would be fighting." I need to go on asking myself: do I succumb to the world's rules as I seek to further the Kingdom of God? Am I even tempted? Do I recognize when I am so tempted?

---

Here is the summary statement of Article #3, entitled "Holy Spirit". (Link to full-text):

3. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the eternal Spirit of God, who dwelled in Jesus Christ, who empowers the church, who is the source of our life in Christ, and who is poured out on those who believe as the guarantee of redemption.

In oneness with Jesus, the Spirit is my Lord and my God, and the Spirit is humble, nonviolent, and stops at nothing for the advancement of the Kingdom. The Spirit makes me, with other Christians, one in Christ. The Spirit empowers the members of the Church to do our work. Our having the Spirit is the sign of God's blessings, promises, and gifts to us. The Spirit is present and working through the members of the Body of Christ most when we are unified. Somehow, we must be unified in our diversity of faith and practice, because I believe the Spirit is present and active in the Church today. I want to see the Spirit in my brothers and sisters in Toledo Mennonite. I want to hear the Spirit's call, and feel the Spirit move me to act and use His gifts, given to me, well. I want our church to be visibly alive, the tangible Body of Christ in Toledo.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, Article 1: God

At Toledo Mennonite Church, we are spending 24 days (starting today, Feb. 9, 2009) together as a congregation studying the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, one article at a time.

For more on the Confession of Faith, including a full text, go here.

The title of this document is very deliberate. There is no definite article in the title; it is neither the definitive confession of faith, nor is it the Mennonite perspective on the Christian faith (let alone the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ on matters of doctrine). While according to the introduction to the Confession of Faith, Anabaptists have been writing confessions of this sort since the 1527 Schleitheim Articles, it has been my impression that Anabaptists are not so into creeds as certain other movements arising out of the Reformation have been. (My impressions on this point are, I believe, drawn from John Roth's Beliefs: Mennonite Faith and Practice: namely, that Anabaptists value "doing theology in community", emphasize "the priesthood of all believers" and Protestant notions of "sola scriptura", and see Anabaptist theology as an ongoing conversation albeit within a certain traditional framework). The Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation rejected, I think, the new Reformed scholasticism which defined orthodoxy in terms of a (practically) authoritative tradition that replaced the authoritative tradition of the Catholic Church. (My historical theology here is admittedly sketchy--please correct me if I am guilty of error!)

Still, the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective is intended by its authors to serve six stated functions:

(1) to provide guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture, while at the same time, the confession itself is subject to the authority of the Bible.
(2) to provide guidance for belief and practice; a written statement should support but not replace the lived witness of faith.
(3)to build a foundation for unity within and among churches.
(4)to offer an outline for instructing new church members and for sharing information with inquirers.
(5) to give an updated interpretation of belief and practice in the midst of changing times.
(6) to help in discussing Mennonite belief and practice with other Christians and people of other faiths.

It is my view that the Confession serves primarily a pedagogical and ecumenical purpose, and at the same time offers Mennonite-Anabaptist congregations with some basis for ongoing conversation as we practice doing theology in community. It provides a common framework, but not one with absolute authority. Our own congregation at TMC values its ideological diversity. I myself would offer the metaphor of the raft: we may be redesigning and rebuilding it while we are sailing on it, but we certainly need enough raft to stand on while we do so. (And there are limits to how radically we might redesign the raft without sinking and drowning!)

---

Here is the summary statement of Article #1, entitled "God". (Link to full-text):

1. We believe that God exists and is pleased with all who draw near by faith. We worship the one holy and loving God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternally. God has created all things visible and invisible, has brought salvation and new life to humanity through Jesus Christ, and continues to sustain the church and all things until the end of the age.

The short devotional offered by one of our members for today is a meditation on 2 Corinthians 9:8:

And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.

He writes: "This verse describes for me some of the primary attributes of God as well as demonstrates God’s care for creation, especially those who have been created in God’s image."

Consonant with the historic, orthodox Christian faith, Mennonites believe in the Triune God as the whole Church confesses in the Nicene Creed. What we believe about God pertains to the acts of God in redemptive history. God is the Creator of heaven and earth. God has acted through Christ to give life to humanity in calling a community of faithful disciples. The article declares: "Beginning with Abraham and Sarah, God has called forth a people of faith to worship God alone, to witness to the divine purposes for human beings and all of creation, and to love their neighbors as themselves. (Gen. 12:2-3; Lev. 19:18; Rom. 4:11-25; 1 Pet. 3:9-11) We have been joined to this people through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ and by confessing him to be Savior and Lord as the Holy Spirit has moved us (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 3:22)."

Mennonite identity is centrally, first and foremost, membership in the people of God. We are a community of faith, not merely a class of individuals. And it is as a community that God--acting in Christ and in the Holy Spirit--has created us, His Church (see article #9).

We believe that God is beyond our understanding (Exod. 3:13-14; Job 37; Isa. 40:18-25; Rom. 11:33-36); yet we also believe that God has communicated truth to us about him. "We believe that what we know of God through revelation fits with who God really is." "God both surpasses human understanding and is truly knowable through revelation. Our knowledge of God rests in this tension."

We believe God is most fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, as the Nicene Creed says "very God of very God" (John 1:14, 18; Heb. 1:1-4).

We believe God is revealed as love. "We confess that in the divine being these attributes [which sometimes appear contradictory to us] are perfectly united." Yet, "according to Scripture, the love of God has a certain priority in relation to other divine attributes." So, we confess that God is "holy love", "almighty love", "preserving love", "righteous love", "redemptive love", "suffering love", and "faithful love" (Exod. 20:4-6; 34:5-7; Ps. 25:4-10; Isa. 6; 54:10; Matt. 5:48; Rom. 2:5-11; 3:21-26; 1 John 4:8, 16).

----

Biblical theism is the cornerstone of Mennonite Christianitiy. Christianity is about being in relation to God, as part of a community of faith. Above all, God relates to us by His love--love which surpasses our comprehension and experience of human love, yet which is sufficiently analogous to our concept of love that the word--but more the experience of Jesus' life and actions--communicates God's nature to us.

As Rich Mullins wrote, "We didn't know what love was 'til He came, and He gave love a face, and He gave love a name".

Loving my neighbor as myself, one of two equally great commandments summing up the whole will of God for His people according to Jesus, means then to live as Christ lived with respect to all other human beings: clean or unclean, sinful or righteous, Jew or Gentile, Christian or non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or agnostic, friend or enemy.
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Universal Restoration in Biblical Theology: Part 1

This is the first post of an intended ongoing series on biblical theology.

1. Here I propose an expression of theology I call "universal restoration". (637 words) This is intended as an interpretation of the central message of the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

2. To set up for future posts & interactive discussion, I specifically raise questions concerning biblical support for this theology and implications for our theology of final judgment (i.e., Hell). (105 words)

3. At the end I also list numerous other practical ecclesial & missional issues to which this theology likely has relevance. (84 words)

(You must click below to read the full post.)

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God: Universal Restoration in Biblical Theology

Scott Coulter

Part I

(9/30/08)

a proposed thesis:

1. The Gospel: The message of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament is God’s working in Christ to restore the whole of God’s creation from its marred and fallen state.

2. Restoration: The restored state of God’s creation may rightly be described with the word shalom, which denotes peace, wholeness, and integrity. God’s restored creation is primarily characterized by harmonious, rightly-ordered relationships: both “vertically” between God and God’s creatures, and “horizontally” among all of God’s creatures. Other good words to describe the restored creation include: “reconciliation”, “atonement”, and “justice & righteousness”.

3. Sin: The nature of sin is best understood as relational brokenness: that is, as the opposite of the relational wholeness denoted by shalom. Or, perhaps, it is better to describe sin not as an opposite of shalom but as a privation of shalom—that is, a deficiency in the perfection of shalom. The meaning of salvation (or deliverance, or redemption) from sin is fundamentally that those who are saved are moved from the sphere of the fallen world which is characterized by sin or relational brokenness into the sphere of the restored creation which is characterized by shalom.

4. Partial Restoration vs. Complete (Universal) Restoration in God’s Cosmos:

a. In one sense there can be shalom in one part of the creation while there is brokenness in another part. For example, we can conceive of one human person reconciled to God in Christ while another’s relationship with God is still broken. Similarly, we can conceive of a community of human persons reconciled to one another (and to the rest of the creation) and to God, whose horizontal relationships are characterized by justice & righteousness, and whose vertical relationship to God is whole, in Christ—and we can conceive of this community of shalom existing while in another part of God’s creation simultaneously there are groups of human persons whose relationships with each other, the rest of the creation, and with God remain broken. Sin and righteousness, injustice and peace can simultaneously exist in different parts of the world (or indeed, in different parts of the same community, and even in different parts of a single person’s life understood as the totality of his/her relationships).

b. Yet in another sense, shalom denotes an ideal state of the whole creation. In this sense shalom is not realized unless all relational brokenness throughout the creation has been undone, and the whole of creation has been restored to a state of wholeness, peace, and integrity.

5. Fulfillment—the Work of God in Christ & in His Church:

a. In Christ, God has already accomplished the restoration of God’s creation. God’s accomplishment of God’s plan of salvation is as certain as if the work has already been finished: for indeed it has already been finished in the work of Christ.

b. However, the full effects of God’s restoring work are not yet manifest in the world in which we, the Church of God, now are living. Not only in the world surrounding us, but also within the community that is God’s Church and in the lives of the people making up this community, there is still sin and relational brokenness.

c. It is the mission of the Spirit-filled Church, as given by Jesus to his disciples, to participate in the ongoing work of Christ (as we are Christ’s body) in bringing about reconciliation where there is brokenness, until the end of the present age when universal shalom is fully realized.

d. The ultimate vision of the Church of Jesus Christ is the beginning of the new age when our Lord returns and visibly brings about universal restoration. In this new, restored creation, sin and its effects will have been fully eradicated. There will be no relational brokenness between God and any of God’s creatures, nor among God’s creatures.

---

It is my intent to show, in a series of posts on this blog, that these tenets are a legitimate interpretation of biblical theology. Critical comments and discussion are very welcome. Over time, I will modify my expression of the above statements for clarity, or revise them for faithfulness to the testimony of scripture as I become convinced that either is necessary.

Two questions are of especial interest to me here:

(1) Does scripture teach the theology I have expressed above?

(2) What are the implications of the theology I have expressed above for a biblical theology of final judgment (i.e., a theology of Hell)?

I am also interested in other implications of this theology to practical ecclesial & missional issues including: (a) racism in the Church, (b) denominationalism, (c) the incarnational mission of the Church in the world locally & globally, (d) church government & the ordering of Christian community, (e) the relationship of church & state, (f) non-violence in Christian community & in the mission of the Church in the world, (g) ecological & environmental concerns, (h) social justice concerns, (i) concerns for justice for non-human animals.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.