I have been particularly impressed with two pastors who have addressed some weighty matter recently with wisdom.
First, I want to point to a sermon series by Greg Boyd where he seeks to reconcile the violent depictions of God in the Hebrew Bible with the God revealed to us through Christ. He argues that we should understand these depictions as “shadows” like the Law, Sabbath, holy feasts, and other things that pointed to Christ but that were incomplete without Christ. I am wrestling with his words, but I admit that they are very thought provoking. If you have the time watch/listen to “God’s Shadow Activity” and “Shadow of the Cross.”
Second, Jonathan Martin was late to the discussion around Doug Wilson’s use of words like “colonization” and “conquering” to describe the so-called “passive role” of women in sex, but he may have given one of the best responses. In “Gender, race, and Pentecost: the world has moved on.” he humbles us all. Martin reminds us that God is doing amazing things around the world while we act as if we are the center of the Christian universe. These are three of my favorite excerpts:
“The future has already arrived, and it has little to do with people like me. In the global body of Christ, we have seen a remarkable shift in the balance of power. Those of us in the west in general and North America in particular are used to being in the seat of power and influence; we are used to being those who shape global conversation in the Church. Our sense of self-importance is innate. Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Israel, our Christian faith a curious syncretism of sentimental piety and manifest destiny, we send missionaries into the world. We ship our virtues and vices wholesale into all the earth.”
And
“I am a Pentecostal by heritage and tradition, but culturally I am one of the bourgeois pastors whose day might seem to be coming, but in many ways has already passed. The whole white male, coffee-drinking, apple product-using, Coldplay-listening type. It is a very small world that we live in that feels deceitfully large. We have blogs, we write books, we talk about the most recent issue of Christianity Today. So it is easy to think we are the center of the universe.”
And
“The average Christian in the world right now is an African or Latin American female in her early 20’s. She doesn’t read our blogs and she doesn’t readChristianity Today. She doesn’t know or care who I am and she never will. The names Piper, Driscoll, Chan, Bell, Stanley, Warren—mean nothing to her. Like most Pentecostal women coming into the kingdom around the world, words like “complementarian” and “egalitarian” are not in her vocabulary, nor Calvinism and Arminianism. Unlike some of my brothers would lead you believe (where their lunch table is the only one that cares about Scripture and THE GOSPEL while anybody who believes differently from them in these tired conversations are flaming liberals), she takes the authority of the Bible very seriously. But more importantly, she believes in the power of the Bible in ways that are incomprehensible even for our most rabid “conservatives.” The western filter and language that frames these issues will not be determinative for her, unlucky as she is not to read our blogs. She may well in end up leading a church one day where she preaches Jesus like a woman on fire and lays hands on the sick and watches God heal them, though this will surprise those Reformed colleagues who are sure all female church leaders have been trained by godless-Unitarian-lesbian-leftist-radical feminist-seminarians (she didn’t have access to seminary at all–unfortunately she has read the Acts of the Apostles). Who knew?”
I recommend taking the time to listen to Boyd’s sermons and read Martin’s article. This is why the pastor-theologian is so valuable to the church. We need more people like them!


July 25, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Did you sense if Boyd’s ‘Open Theism’ was informing any of his interpretive moves?
July 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Thus far I haven’t, but I could have missed something.
July 26, 2012 at 7:34 am
Quote “Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Israel, our Christian faith a curious syncretism of sentimental piety and manifest destiny, we send missionaries into the world.”
To Israel it was claimed “I am your God an you are my people” and “my treasured possession amongst all people, for all the earth is mine” and “… throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”
Likewise it was the syncretic ideas of Canaanite Baal worship and the Babylonian concept of citizenship that God rejected, rather than the Israelite idea of faithful nationhood under God.
If Martin rejects the idea that America should be the new Israel ( a people specially chosen and blessed by God), and attributes syncretism to the holy mountain of a homogeneous Israelite Kingdom with God as it’s king, as opposed to the heterogeneous Babylonian state with humanity as it’s king – the man is a fool.
If he’s criticizing America’s Babylonian attributes, I stand with him, but to criticize manifest destiny and ‘newe Israel’ is backwards. The whole idea of an ‘elect people’ is manifest destiny!
July 26, 2012 at 7:45 am
Jonathan’s words are spot on!
And did you know the URL is now back to the WordPress version than the simpler .com version?
July 26, 2012 at 8:04 am
I don’t object to his evident hope all with have a holy reference for God without distinction.
I object to his criticism that a nation see itself as ‘New Israel’ with a manifest destiny. All nations have a manifest destiny to worship God, and if one happens to export this view – that’s a blessed thing, not a cursed thing. When Israel wasn’t acting like Babylon, it was a nation beloved by God. When American is a nation not acting like Babylon, a nation indeed acting as ‘new Israel’ it indeed has a manifest destiny. It shouldn’t be this that is criticized.
Rather it should be when American acts like Babylon that should be criticized, except this isn’t what Jonathan was criticizing. His words said ‘new Israel’ not ‘Babylon’. His view is unbiblical!
July 26, 2012 at 8:36 am
Scott
Agreed! Yes, I had to renew “nearemmaus.com” and it still works now, but as a redirection. When I tried to make nearemmaus.com stand as JohnDave had it before it wouldn’t go to the blog.
Andrew
All he is saying is that America by definition of being America (and Americans by definition of being Americans) is not some “elect” group.
July 26, 2012 at 9:03 am
… how much room does that leave room for those God honouring Americans to be ‘elect’ (and perhaps see themselves as ‘New Israel’)? His position seems to be splitting hairs and criticizing the wrong group. I absolutely agree those who rebell against God are not His elect, including Americans. But his criticism is not aimed at apostate Americans – it specifically critical of ‘New Israel’. It is not likely to be non-believers who hold hope for ‘New Israel’ – so why oppose them?
To put faith in American (before God) is evidence of Babylonian idolotry. Why does he not say ‘Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Babylon, our civic culture a curious syncretism of sentimental piety and manifest destiny, we send missionaries into the world”?
He’s presupposes a hope for ‘New Israel’ automatically means this view is false against the bible and further assumes it to be tied to one’s allegiance to one’s country. American patriotism devoid of faith may be just that, but that isn’t ‘New Israel’ and it isn’t our (your) Christian faith either. He is leavenaing the whole loaf (Christian faith) with this and his assumptions are false (and a dangrous seductive worldly position).
There is a different between saying Americans (meaning true Christian Americans) aren’t God’s elect and Americans (meaning true Christian Americans) should not buy into worldly Babylonian values.
Jonathan is not qualified to say who is and is not God’s elect.
July 26, 2012 at 9:07 am
I am pretty sure you are completely misreading his article. Again, all he is saying is that being an American doesn’t equate to being part of the people of God and that America as a whole does not function as national Israel did in the Old Covenant. He isn’t saying he knows who is elect and who is not. He isn’t saying Americans can’t be part of the elect.
July 26, 2012 at 10:05 am
Brian I am not misunderstanding him and his backwards thinking should not be excused.
He criticizes those who are ‘Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Israel’ and immediately attributes this to ‘our Christian faith’ NOT CIVIC ALLEGIANCE. If there are Americans who are ‘Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Israel’ IT IS SO because of faith, not because of civic allegiance and they indeed have a right to be ‘Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Israel’ since they are members of the Kingdom of God with Christ as their King.
The subject of his criticism emphasises those with faith. If you read that otherwise, either you’re incorrect in your reading of it, or he chose very poor words to say what he meant. If his claim been as you say it is, and his emphasis on citizenship rather than faith, this is how it might have read: ‘Drunk on the rhetoric of America as a new Babylon, our civic culture a curious syncretism of sentimental piety and manifest destiny, we send missionaries into the world”. That isn’t what it says.
The group, who are the real problem, who he is completely silent on are ‘those without faith’ ‘drunk on the worldly rhetoric of a secular state’. Do you not agree? By saying ‘America AS A WHOLE does not function as national Israel did in the Old Covenant’ he is presupposing he knows who IS and IS NOT elect and he is saying something false and unbiblical about a great number of Americans. At most, to say something true, he could have said ‘SECULAR America does not function as national Israel did in the Old Covenant’ which would have criticized instead the folks not in the group possessing ‘our Christian faith’.
The poison in his position is that he falsely attributes the problem to a group of people (who possess Christian faith) who hold a biblical position (recognizing oneself as the New Israel), rather than those folks who ARE ACTUALLY THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.
July 26, 2012 at 10:08 am
I guess we are at an impasse. I don’t see Martin addressing anything you are saying. I’m not quite sure why you are critiquing him for things he didn’t write. Your critiquing perceived implications of what he wrote that are no means present in the article itself.
August 1, 2012 at 11:14 am
I like some of the excerpts you’ve taken from these guys; I’m going to look further into them. Thanks for sharing, Brian!