Archive for August 8th, 2009

Re-view

Saturday, August 08th, 2009 | Author:

On June 21, I posted a TW about the Sabbath.  Dan made some great comments in the following few days, eventually prompting me to ask if Bob Gorelik would add his thoughts.  Since I was very late posting Bob’s reply, most of the community had long forgotten the thread from that discussion.  So, I sent Bob’s reply directly to Dan and others who commented.  I received a very nice email from Dan about the discussion, expressing his concern that at times I seem to dismiss or ignore the work of other notable believers.  I apologize to you all. That is never my intent.  I want to grapple with the truth and be open to all points of view until we can find our way through them.  And if we can’t, unity in the Spirit and love for each other still comes FIRST!

So, here’s my response to Dan, posted for the community as a way of saying, “Please accept my apology if I seemed too curt.”  All dialogue given in love is good dialogue.

Skip

Dear Dan,

Thanks for the sharing the personal background.  It helps me understand your concern.

As you know, Bob was a student of Flusser and knows Bilzzard.  I have read them all and very much appreciate their work.  By the way, Flusser never became a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah, but that does not diminish his insights in my opinion.

My comments about breaking the Sabbath are simply reflections of the Scriptural consequences.  Since the Sabbath is God’s sanctification of time, established by God, part of Torah, etc. it is pretty serious.  And the biblical statements about ignoring it are also pretty serious – being cut off, death, etc.

However, Bob and I have ahd several conversations about what do we do now, in this culture.  While we both agree that honoring the Sabbath is the goal, he and I both travel when required on the Sabbath.  As Bob said to me, “If God has equipped you to teach, and you fulfill His will by teaching, then you need to get on the plane on Friday.”  The Sabbath was made for Man, right?  So, I am quite sure that God allows those who are following His purposes to fulfill them regardless of the day.  That is not the same as saying that any day can be the Sabbath or that the Sabbath doesn’t really count anymore.  All I know is that God intends His creation to rest in Him on a regular cycle for the benefit of all.

Flusser, Young and Bilzzard may certainly hold different views.  And they are respected scholars for sure.  But I doubt that any of them would dismiss the importance of Sabbath or the intent of Sabbath.  Certainly not Flusser, who was orthodox.  I don’t want to dismiss or ignore Sabbath either, but I will tell you straight up that I struggle with keeping it, especially with my work and travel schedule. But God is gracious.  He knows I struggle.

The last thing I would ever want is for a member of the community to think that I am entrenched, myopic and without compassion for the struggles of others.  Far be it from me!  I am a sinner, man!  I am in the fight too.  My wife reminds me that I have a hard time living what I write.  Unity is more important than theological bickering, so I apologize if I seemed to cut you off.  That was not the intention at all.  I want dialogue that leads to truth, but I know that rabbis have argued over some Scriptures of centuries without consensus and they are quite at home with the tension.

Love,
Skip

By the way, you would probably enjoy Mark Buchanan’s The Rest of God.

Category: Articles  | Tags: , , , ,  | 9 Comments

Cluster Theology

Saturday, August 08th, 2009 | Author:

“Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees;” Acts 23:6

I am – “I am a Pharisee,” says Paul. Do you think we hear what he proclaimed? I doubt it. Most of us think of Paul as a Christian convert from Judaism. Most of us think of the Pharisees as the bad guys. We think Paul left all that behind when he met Yeshua on the Damascus road. As a result of this fallacious thinking, we interpret Paul’s teaching with our Greek mindset, forcing him to follow the conceptual patterns that we bring to the text. We don’t understand what it means to be a Pharisee, how Pharisees think or how they use the Scriptures. The result: confusion and contradiction. For centuries the “church” has argued over what Paul really means, all the while denying Paul’s logic is based in an eastern Semitic process that stands in radical opposition to western Greek thinking. When was the last time you received instruction about how to think like a Pharisee so that you could really understand Paul? Or Jesus?

Brad Young makes the following comment:

“The Hebrew mind viewed God quite differently from the systematic theological thinking of the West, which defines God and his work with creation in a linear fashion. The Western-style treatment of the divine character attempts to explain inconsistencies and harmonize contradictions systematically. The Hebrew mind was filled with wonder at the mystery of God. The vastness of God and his inscrutable ways left them awestruck. Inconsistencies and contradictions are intimately related to human, finite understandings of the infinite God. He is beyond human comprehension. First-century Jews approached God through an interactive associative mentality. The fact that God is incomprehensible is very much a part of Jewish thought processes. The Western mind, however, explains everything but understands so little of the divine nature. The Hebrew mind, on the other hand, is overpowered by a sense of wonder and amazement. It thrives on the inconsistencies and contradictions of the one awe-inspiring God.”

Young demonstrates Paul’s theology is “circular and interactive,” and reflects the eastern, Hebrew mentality. Paul doesn’t strain in the least to say God is sovereign and we are predestined in one breath, and that we must work out our salvation and make eternal choices in the next. Paul holds human beings totally accountable for their sins and at the same time seems to say that Adam is responsible for the whole problem. And what do we do with these “inconsistencies?” We write linear, logical systematic theologies in an attempt to “fix” them. Have you ever wondered why there is no Jewish systematic theology? Maybe it’s because for the Hebrew, God is simply too big, too wonderful and too amazing to be forced into our boxes. Maybe it’s because tension is OK in the pursuit of God. Not everything has an answer – now. Some mysteries will have to wait in spite of theological headaches.

Read a little of Paul’s letters with an eye toward mystery and wonder. See if suddenly you don’t have a new appreciation for the way Paul thinks. See if you don’t discover clusters of praise and amazement. See if Paul’s circular reasoning just can’t be pounded into Greek square holes. And recognize that it’s OK not to know all the answers. Yes, I am sure that will be quite uncomfortable. Our culture wants to be correct; to know the truth for certain. But maybe the Hebrew mind is a little closer to reality. Maybe there is something about God that is just beyond us. Can you live with that?

Topical Index: Hebrew mind, Paul, theology, Acts 23:6, wonder, inconsistencies

Brad Young, Paul: The Jewish Theologian, p. 25

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 34 Comments

Agrupación de Teologías

Saturday, August 08th, 2009 | Author:

Agosto 8 “Varones hermanos yo soy Fariseo, hijo de Fariseos;” Hechos 23:6

Agrupación de Teologías

Yo soy- “Soy un Fariseo”, dice Pablo. ¿Cree usted que escuchamos lo que él proclamaba? Yo lo dudo. La mayoría de nosotros pensamos en Pablo como un cristiano convertido del judaísmo. La mayoría de nosotros piensa que los Fariseos eran los malos. Pensamos que Pablo dejó todo eso cuando se encontró con Yeshua en la calle a Damasco. Como resultado de este fallido pensamiento, interpretamos la enseñanza de Pablo con nuestra mentalidad griega, obligándolo a seguir los patrones conceptuales que traemos al texto. No entendemos lo que significa ser un Fariseo, cómo piensan los Fariseos ó cómo utilizan las Escrituras. El resultado: confusión y contradicción. Por siglos la “iglesia” ha argumentado acerca de lo que Pablo en realidad quiere decir, mientras niega que la lógica de Pablo está basada en el proceso Semítico oriental que se pone en posición radical al pensamiento griego occidental. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que recibiste instrucción acerca de cómo debes de pensar cómo un Fariseo parque en realidad pudieras entender a Pablo? ¿Ó a Jesús?

Brad Young hace el siguiente comentario:

“La mente Hebrea miraba a Dios de manera muy diferente del pensamiento sistemático teológico del Occidente, el cual define a Dios y Su obra con la creación de una manera lineal. El tratamiento del estilo occidental para el carácter divino intenta explicar inconsistencias y armoniza las contradicciones sistemáticamente. La mente hebrea fue llena de maravilla acerca del misterio de dios. La vastedad de Dios y sus caminos inescrutables les dejaban boquiabiertos. Las inconsistencias y contradicciones están íntimamente relacionadas al entendimiento finito, humano del infinito Dios. Él va más allá de la comprensión humana. Los judíos del primer siglo se acercaban a Dios por medio de una mentalidad asociativa-interactiva. El hecho de que Dios es incomprensible es una gran parte del procesa de pensamiento del judío. La mente Occidental, sin embargo, explica todo pero entiende muy poco de la naturaleza divina. La mente hebrea, por otra parte, es sobrecogida por un sentido de maravilla y de asombro. Lucha en las inconsistencias y contradicciones del Dios que inspira maravilla.” 9

Young señala que la teología de Pablo es “circular e interactiva”, y refleja la mentalidad oriental, hebrea. Pablo no se contiene en lo más mínimo para decir que Dios es soberano y que nosotros estamos predestinados en un solo respiro, y que debemos de trabajar nuestra salvación y hacer elecciones eternas en la próxima. Pablo hace completamente responsable a los seres humanos pos sus pecados y al mismo tiempo parece decir que Adán es responsable por todo el problema. ¿Y qué hacemos con estas “inconsistencias”? Escribimos teologías lógicas sistemáticas en un intento por “arreglarlas”. ¿Alguna vez se ha preguntado por qué no hay una teología sistemática judía? Quizás es porque para el hebreo, Dios es sencillamente muy grande, muy maravilloso, y muy sorprendente como para ser forzado en nuestro cajón. Quizás es porque la tensión está BIEN en la búsqueda de Dios. No todo tiene una respuesta-ahora. Algunos misterios tendrán que esperar a pesar de los dolores de cabeza de las teologías.

Lea un poco acerca de las cartas de Pablo con un ojo puesto en el misterio y la maravilla. Vea a ver si no tienen una nueva apreciación por las maneras en que Pablo piensa. Vea a ver si no encuentra agrupaciones de alabanzas y de maravilla. Vea si el razonamiento circular de Pablo simplemente no puede apretujarse en hoyos cuadrados griegos. Y reconozca que está BIEN no saber todas las respuestas. Si, sé que será medio incómodo. Nuestra cultura quiere estar en lo correcto; saber la verdad con certeza. Pero quizás la mentalidad hebrea está un poco más cercana a la realidad. Tal vez hay algo acerca de Dios que está un poco más allá de nosotros mismos. ¿Puede vivir con eso?

[1] Brad Young, Pablo: El Teólogo Judío, p. 25

Índice de Tema: mente hebrea, Pablo, teología, Hechos 23:6, maravilla, inconsistencias.

Category: La Palabra de Hoy  | Tags: , , , , ,  | Comments off