This article by Micheal Moore is really good. Don’t get me wrong, I am not what you would consider a fan of his. Even when I want to like him, I struggle to find him compelling. But when someone, anyone, gets Jesus right, I am committed to being the trumpeter. So check it out.
In his sermon on the mount, Jesus informs us that Kingdom living involves letting go of our anger and contempt for others. I realized while I was preparing to preach about that, I had someone who was angry with me, and part of the problem was my anger and contemptible attitude. Therefore I
was convicted to “leave my gift at the altar” and reconcile with this person. I tried to call him, but I had the wrong number, so I emailed him. Here is the conversation:
On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:08 PM, you wrote:
Mr. X,
My name is Chad from Lone Star Comics in Fort Worth. I was told from
Cass, our manager, that you came in and let him know of your
displeasure with my service. A week or so afterward, I saw you
outside the store, and you called “F-You!” and gave me the finger. I
could not figure out why you had such a hostile attitude towards me
or what I had done to offend you. A few times you mentioned my
poilitics, but I didn’t remember having a conversation about that.
It took me a little bit, but I believe I do remember having a
conversation with you sometime. At any rate, I wanted to apologize
to you for any rudeness I may have given you or any way in which I
was disrespectful. I hope you can forgive me for my poor choice of
words and poor attitude towards you. This is coming from me, not
Lone Star. Thanks.
Chad
from Lone Star
His response was a follows:
Hi Chad,
I was the one that was too harsh the other day. I was not in a very
good mood and even if I have issues with you on the political side I
should not have yelled out.
I think we do not mix well but I have found that people can often find
common ground after events like this.
Yes I do accept your apology and I offer you mine as well. We should
just take a step back.
Thanks for taking the time,
X X
I wrote back that I look forward to seeing him again and that there is a firm handshake waiting… Apparently Jesus knows what he is talking about.
Over here at Brian McLaren’s blog, he posted about a conference he was attending this weekend. Check it out. This line however struck me as very very very encouraging (and if you have been in Bible study with me at all or heard me preach, you know why this excites me):
Speaking about the priorities that revelealed themselves in the emerging movement of Christianty, his first priority was this:
“1. A fresh vision of Jesus, rooted in the canonical gospels rather than in later theological debates. This fresh vision of Jesus and the kingdom of God brings a new perspective on Paul and the whole Bible as well.”
All I can say is right freakin’ on.
So I had this idea a while back when I was taking a Gospels class. We were talking about how the stories of Jesus existed before they were actually written down. Many small stories of Jesus, called pericopes (peh-rick-oh-pees), were eventually collected and arranged by the gospel writers to suit their needs in composing their gospels.
Each of these gospel writers (classically called the Evangelists) had their own agenda in composing their gospels and had their own reasons for including certain pericopes and leaving others out. Of course, like John says, it isn’t possible for a single ancient book to collect everything related to Jesus, so this process seems like it was not only expedient for the Evangelists, but necessary.
I usually tend to think it is better to try and be like the Apostles, rather than just listen to them, and so finally my thought is this:
What would it look like for a person or a community to take all known pericopes of Jesus (or more?) and formulate them, like the Evengelists did, into a coherent “gospel” by which they could use like the Evangelists did and for the purpose they intended? What has stopped me is twofold. First, I thought if I did it by myself, which sounds like a lot of fun, it would be very presumptuous and probably very arrogant sounding. Second, if done in a group, it would take so much time as to be unwieldy and tedious (approx. 367 pericopes).
So after a couple of years of sitting on this, I would like to know what you all think about this idea.
Thanks.
Rod posted a review of my paper on Jesus and the Temple in John. You can check it out here.
For a pretty scholarly take on Messiahship in John’s gospel as it relates to the prophet Zechariah, check out my boy Rodney’s paper here.
First, not overwhelming, but good use of Greek.
Second, very impressed you refered to and made something of metonymic intertextuality. I picked up that interpretive tool from people much scmarter than me and it seems Rabbis used it quite a bit, as did Jesus.
Third, very important point – the LXX version lends itself MUCH more to messianic expectation and interpretation that did (does) the Hebrew texts. Good point, Rod.
Fourth, My heart smiles whenever someone quotes Brueggeman.
Last, ironic that my wife watched a show on angels and demons on Biography channel the other day. Lots of it was from intertestemental apocraphal literature, i.e. 1 Enoch. Apparently, in Enoch it is made much of that the devil is indeed one of God’s court, who simply is annoyed with humanity and lives to accuse them, but in no way is antagonistic towards God. Good point regarding the contrast with John’s gospel.
Good paper, bro. 1 step closer to getting published big time!
Since John’s gospel is coming from a different place and time than the synoptic gospels, this paper reflects not necessarily my belief, but rather what John’s gospel has to say about Jesus’ relationship with the Jewish temple. It has some good historical nuggets, too for you history buffs. I think I lean towards understanding Jesus’ relationship with the temple like Mark suggests, i.e. Jesus acts in judgment of it, but John’s understanding is something that I am not in complete disagreement with either. Please enjoy, and as always, I covet your input!
