CWoznicki Think Out Loud

Themes in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: Imitation

The imitation of Christ has always been an important emphasis within Christianity. Augustine believed that the whole point of the Christian life was to imitate Christ. Francis of Assisi also felt strongly about imitating Christ, in fact he modeled his entire ministry around the way Christ did ministry. Francis advocated for a life of poverty and itinerant preaching, imitating Christ’s work in the Gospels. However the most prominent and well known advocate for the imitation of Christ is Thomas a Kempis. He wrote the classic devotional book The Imitation of Christ. This book is truly a modern classic. It is one of the most widely read Christian books apart from the Bible and it helped to spark the Devotio Moderna movement (along with Geert Groote). This book advocates for a spiritual imitation of Christ. Paul in his letter to the Philippians also advocates for a sort of imitation. But the imitation Paul advocates for is less spiritual and more tangible/physical.

⁸Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— ¹⁰that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, ¹¹that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Notice what Paul says in verse 10. He desires to know Christ and share in his sufferings…becoming like him in his death. Paul desires to share in Christ’s sufferings! He desires to become like Christ in his death and resurrection. I’m not going to comment on that too much today. I just want to let you sit with that and soak it in.

Is this a desire that you can say is yours as well?

I know it certainly isn’t for me. I know that I personally like the first part of verse 10. The part about knowing Christ and the power of his resurrection, but the second part not so much! I don’t want to share in his sufferings and I don’t want to become like him in his death. I’m just being honest with you.

But right now you might be saying, “well that is just for Paul. Paul isn’t saying that we have to have this same desire.” If that’s what you are thinking right now check out 3:17

¹⁷Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.

Not only are we to imitate Christ, we are to imitate Paul and the example of those who have gone before us and followed Christ faithfully. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t unreflective following. This doesn’t mean you need to become like Francis of Assisi or like Brother Yun. Don’t blindly copy and paste someone else’s ministry/life onto your own. However

You should be looking to their lives, seeing how they are being Christ like, whether in “power” or in “suffering,” then imitate that!

Take that example that was set before you and use it to spur you on into knowing “him and the power of his resurrection that you may share his sufferings becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible you might attain the resurrection from the dead.”

Questions for Reflection

Who are you looking to as an example of Christ-likeness? I.e. Who are you “imitating?”
What specifically is Christ-like about that person?
Who are you being an example of Christ-likeness to? How are you doing that?
What is the missional impact of a community imitating Christ together before the world?

Themes in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: Selflessness

Originally I intended to write on the Christ Hymn, highlighting Philippians 2:5-11. I wanted to highlight the presence of “Adam-Christology” and highlight the parallels to the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. I really wanted to talk about the “temptation” that Christ was presented with, it wasn’t that Christ was grabbing at a “forbidden equality with God” (after all as the 2^nd person of the Trinity he is equal to God) rather it was to cling on to his rights and to opt out of the task allotted to him. Basically the “temptation” Christ went through was the temptation to follow the way of redemption planned by the father or to “follow” it according to some other way… the way of the world…the way presented before him in his wilderness temptation. Verse 6 says that Christ did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped…. The refusal to “grasp” was a refusal to use for his own advantage that which was already his. Listen to how N.T. Wright puts it in The Climax of the Covenant:

“Over against the standard picture of oriental despots, who understood their position as something to be used for their own advantage, Jesus understood his position to mean self negation… “Divine equality does not mean “getting” but “giving.”

If I would have picked up on the Christ Hymn I would have talked about Christ’s example… it’s an example of self-giving not taking. Godliness gives up one’s “rights” for the sake of others.” But I won’t focus on that at all this week.

In this post on Philippians Two I want to focus on something a bit more obscure, namely how Paul sends out Timothy and Epaphroditus. And I only want to focus on verse 21:

For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.

Paul laments over the fact that many of the others doing ministry with him, don’t have Jesus in mind when doing ministry. They have their own interests. Self-centeredness is the modus operandi. Timothy however is not like that. He has Jesus’ interests in mind. He has Jesus’ agenda in mind. Timothy’s attitude here parallels Christ’s attitude in the Christ Hymn

Paul exhorts the Philippians to do “nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” Timothy is a living example of a Christ-like mind. Timothy does not act out of selfish ambition or conceit. Paul says “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Timothy does not consider his own interests ahead of anyone else, rather he places the interests of Jesus Christ above all other interests. Timothy is a model of what a Christ-like life looks like.

But take it back another level… look at the life of Paul. Timothy learns from Paul, and Paul is another model of what a Christ-like life looks like. Notice what Paul says:

“Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.”

Notice how this parallels the Christ-hymn. Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant.” Jesus was “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Similarly Paul is being poured out… Paul is being emptied out in order to serve the Philippians. Paul is being obedient to the mission God gave him, by being imprisoned and by putting his life at risk, so that the Philippians would come to know the Gospel and all its implications.

Paul’s actions and Timothy’s actions both are living (at the time) examples of the Christ-Hymn. Both of these men’s lives show us the gospel in a very tangible way.

So as you think about the chapter this week consider the following questions:

Godliness gives up one’s “rights” for the sake of others.” How are you tempted to hold on to your rights?
What other interests in your life are competing with those of Jesus Christ?
Who can you look up to as a model of Christ-likeness in your life? Who are you modeling Christ-likeness for?

Responsibility and Atonement (Pt. 3)

It’s Easter Weekend! Its the time of year we Christians celebrate Christ’s atoning work for us on the cross and his resurrection, which we participate in through baptism into Christ. In light of the fact that it is Easter weekend I will be blogging on Richard Swinburne’s Responsibility and Atonement this easter weekend. Today on Easter Sunday I hope to show that Swinburne’s atonement is full of shortcomings.

Here are the first two posts: Responsibility and Atonement (Pt. 1) and Responsibility and Atonement (Pt. 2)

_____________________________________

Having laid out Swinburne’s atonement theory I would like to point out three shortcomings. The first shortcoming is about his method. Swinburne’s atonement theory is marked by a lack of interaction with scripture. He beings with certain philosophical notions and the formulates his theology in light of them. As a philosopher this is understandable, his theology will be done in dialogue with philosophy, but one would at least expect him to put his philosophical notions and scripture in dialogue with one another. Yet he does not do this, he proceeds to make theological arguments strictly in light of his philosophical positions. Even when he does use scripture, it is coloured by his philosophical positions. It is well acknowledged that it is difficult to have a neutral reading of scripture; we always bring our own philosophical and cultural baggage to the text but there is something odd when one does not even try to begin with scripture humbly acknowledging ones own biases. Because he lacks interaction with scripture and instead formulates his doctrine from philosophy it is hard to know what to make of his theological claims. This is a shortcoming in his theology of atonement.

A second shortcoming is Swinburne’s theology by analogy. We might want to ask Swinburne questions like: “does God inhabit the same moral universe that we do?” “Is our system of morality the same as God’s?” These questions highlight some important issues we must grapple with when doing atonement theology by analogy. In talking about our moral concepts and God’s moral concepts is our language univocal? That is, is our use of the word “atonement” the same for humans as it is for God? Or is it equivocal? Does our use of the word “atonement” have completely different meanings for us than God? Or perhaps is the use of the word “atonement” analogical? Namely is “atonement” for us and God similar in certain ways but different in others? Nowhere does Swinburne address this important issue. He merely assumes that the way atonement works for humans is the same exact way atonement works for God. He may or many not be correct, but he never shows why we should believe that atonement works the same way for God and humans. There are certainly good reasons to believe that it does and equally good reasons to believe that it doesn’t, but merely assuming that it does makes his account of atonement less convincing.

The final, and possibly most important, shortcoming that I would like to mention is that Swinburne’s account at times can come off as being semi-pelagian. First he has a very weak doctrine of original sin. He believes that humans are mostly in possession of a good will and that humans can in fact willfully choose on their own to do good (even though it is very difficult for humans to do this). He is overly optimistic in the goodness of humans. This is displayed by his belief that humans just “need help” to make atonement. For Swinburne humans do a part to make atonement but Jesus adds the rest for us. Thus the act of atonement is not something that God does for us, it is something that we do together. This synergistic account of the atonement makes it so that Christ’s work is a necessary but not a sufficient action for atonement. At the end of the day humans are responsible for the attainment of their forgiveness. Christ alone is not responsible. In addition to the fact that for Swinburne Christ’s work is not sufficient for forgiveness, there is another problem that touches upon some of his semi-pelagian leanings, namely that Christ’s work only restores the status quo. Christ’s work is not sufficient for justification, Christ’s work restores the balance of the “debt” owed to God. In his later chapters on heaven and hell it seems as though the atonement merely fixes the balance between God and humans but humans are responsible to make their own choices later in life which will determine their fate for eternity. Where one ends up in the eternal state has nothing to do with Christ’s atoning work, rather it has to do with cultivating one’s will and forming a good moral character. Thus once again Christ’s work isn’t a sufficient piece for salvation.

I believe that these three shortcomings; his method, his assumption of theology by analogy, and his semi-pelagian leanings make his account of the atonement hard to buy into. It is this last shortcoming which is especially damning. His semi-pelagian leanings place him well outside of what the Christian tradition has affirmed about Christ’s work of atonement.

Responsibility and Atonement (Pt. 2)

It’s Easter Weekend! Its the time of year we Christians celebrate Christ’s atoning work for us on the cross and his resurrection, which we participate in through baptism into Christ. In light of the fact that it is Easter weekend I will be blogging on Richard Swinburne’s Responsibility and Atonement this easter weekend. I hope to show that Swinburne’s atonement is full of shortcomings. Today, on Holy Saturday we be looking at another aspect of Swinburne’s atonement theology. After this we will be in a position where we can critique his theory =)

_______________________________________

In addition to these four components of atonement (repentance, apology, reparation, penance) there is another component which is very important for Swinburne’s moral system. He believes that a person can help another person make atonement. One can help a person to make atonement by encouraging her to repent or apologize. One can also help a person make atonement by providing another person the means to make reparation or penance if that person does not have the means to do it themselves.[1] The act of helping to make atonement for another person will be very important for Swinburne’s theological work on atonement.

Swinburne’s primary work on the theological side of atonement is found in chapter ten, “Redemption.” He claims that “each human sinner owes atonement to God for the sins (objective and subjective) which he has committed himself,” and that this atonement involves repentance, apology, and reparation. However given man’s sinfulness it is extremely difficult for humans to make the necessary atonement. Thus humans need help from outside.[2]

Swinburne believes that no person can atone for the sins of another person, however one can help another person atone for their sins. Thus God can provide the help humans need to perform atonement. God provides the necessary reparation and penance for human atonement. This is Christ’s life and death. Swinburne makes it clear that the crucifixion is not a payment of a penalty, in other words he disavows Penal Substitutionary Atonement. However he argues for what he calls a sacrifice model, which is for all intensive purposes a version of the satisfaction theory of atonement. Christ is a sacrifices, who gives something valuable to God, namely his life ‘lived in obedience to God and laid down on the cross.’[3] Christ’s offering of himself as a sacrifice is a supererogatory act. Since God did not owe God anything, and he owed other humans very little, his giving of his life is meritorious. Christ’s meritorious work can be applied to human work of atonement. Thus humans who repent and apologize to God for their sins can use Christ’s life and death as their own reparation and penance. Just as a friend can help another friend make atonement, Christ can help a repentant and apologetic sinner make atonement. Thus if we are to summarize Swinburne’s position, humans repent and apologize but Christ offers reparation and penance for them. These four actions combined remove the guilt that humans cannot remove on their own.

[1] Swinburne 91

[2] Swinburne 148

[3] Swinburne 152

Responsibility and Atonement (Pt. 1)

It’s Easter Weekend! Its the time of year we Christians celebrate Christ’s atoning work for us on the cross and his ressurection, which we participate in through baptism into Christ. In light of the fact that it is easter weekend I will be blogging on Richard Swinburne’s Responsibility and Atonement this easter weekend. I hope to show that Swinburne’s atonement is full of shortcomings. Today, on Good Friday we start of by looking at his atonement theory.

_________________________________________

Swinburne’s book Responsibility and Atonement is an attempt to articulate a moral philosophy which can be accepted by Christians and non-Christians alike and then articulate the theological consequences of this system. The first seven chapters are done without any reference to theology, and mainly focus on the notion of responsibility. In these chapters he covers concepts like moral goodness, free will, merit, rewards, and punishment. The second part of the book is devoted to the theological consequences of this moral system. Here he covers concepts like morality under God, sin, redemption, heaven, and hell. Although all of these chapters are relevant to Swinburne’s doctrine of atonement the heart of Swinburne’s doctrine is found in chapters five and ten, “Guilty, Atonement, and Forgiveness” and “Redemption” respectively. In this blog series I will articulate Swinburne’s doctrine of atonement, then I will present three shortcomings of his atonement theory.

Since Swinburne’s theology is based off his moral philosophy it will be helpful to begin by examining his understanding of atonement between humans before we examine his theological position. In chapter five Swinburne offers four components for making atonement: repentance, apology, reparation, penance. He begins by saying that guilt is analogous to debt and that it an be removed “either by the action of the wrongdoer (in some way) paying it off; or by the action f the victim (in some way) taking compensation.”[1] However, to make perfect removal of guilt, the wrongdoer must make atonement and the victim must forgive the wrongdoer. Atonement is made when the wrongdoer performs these four components. First, the victim must repent. He or she must acknowledge his own her wrongdoing and acknowledge the fact that his or her actions were wrong, he or she must also must resolve to amend the wrong. When the wrongdoer does this privately, the wrongdoer makes repentance. When the wrongdoer does it publicly the wrongdoer makes an apology. Both private repentance and public apology are involved in the act of making atonement. Atonement also involves reparation. Reparation involves achieving the restoration of the status quo (there are certain cases when it is impossible to restore the status quo but an attempt must be made.) Reparation will cost the wrongdoer something, and only the person wronged can decide of the reparation is adequate. One can think of reparation as compensation to the person wronged. Finally penance is involved. Penance is a token of sorrow in which the wrongdoer does something which costs him something. By making penance the wrongdoer makes his apology “serious.” Penance goes above and beyond what is involved in making reparation. These four things, apology, repentance, reparation, penance constitute the work of atonement. However guilt is only removed when the work of atonement is made and the victim forgives the wrongdoer. Swinburne makes it clear that he believes that mere forgiveness cannot remove guilt, atonement and forgiveness must go together for guilt to be removed.

In the next blog post I will articulate another important aspect of his atonement theory…

[1] Swinburne 81

How To Read the Bible (I’m Not Being Snarky!)

The last post in this series of posts on hermeneutics was titled: How to Read Your Bible (or How You Actually Read the Bible), I must admit that that the title was a bit snarky. You probably thought I was going to tell you about ways to read your bible but I fooled you and showed you how you actually read your Bible. I’m sorry about that. This time I will actually outline a few methods for reading the Bible. There are at least three rather obvious places where we can find meaning in the text of the Bible. When you read you probably find yourself engaging in trying to find meaning in all three” locations” Here are the three:

Behind the Text
In the Text
In front of the Text

Behind the Text

This way of approaching the texts attempts to locate the meaning especially in history. This has been the dominant approach in biblical studies for centuries. When reading this way the reader attempts to isolate the historically intended, correct meaning of the text. It attempts to inquire into the historical situation/background of the text. It places a majority of its emphasis on what is going on during the actual writing of the text. This type of reading makes use of other discipleins like “Historical Criticism,” “Extracannonical Jewish Text Studies,” and “Classics.” The key word for this type of reading is “History.”

In the Text

In the text methods (obviously) attempt to focus on the text itself, its form, its structure, its consistency, etc. Many times this sort of reading will make use of other disciplines like “rhetorical criticsm” or “Genre Analysis” or “Linguistics.” The in the text reading” is where we might locate the blooming discipline of “new testatment use of the old.” This discipline fits into this way of reading scripture because it focuses on how some texts make use of other texts. This type of reading (new testament use of the old) makes use of intercannonical liteary themes. Thus it limits itself to the study of the text itself. The key word for this type of reading is “Literature.”

In Front of the Text

This way of reading scripture takes very seriously the questions, “who is doing the reading?” This method emphasizes the fact that the reader is not an empty receptacle for meaning, rather as the reader engages with the text, the reader contributes (baggage) to his/her reading of the text. In-front-of-the-text readings do not pretend to be neutral, rather they recognize that all our readings come from a particular vantage point, that is, there is no “view from nowhere.” This way of reading scripture makes use of other disciplines like “Feminist Criticism,” “African American Criticism,” and “Latino/a Criticism.” Interpretation for the sake of Christian Ethics might also fall into this sort of reading, namely because Christian Ethics is about the response of the reader and his/her understanding of the text. The key word for this type of reading is “Response.”

This was just a really short outline of three ways we approach scripture. Although professional scholars usually engage primarily in one of these methods (N.T. Wright would be considered “Behind the Text” and Walter Bruggeman would be considered “In the Text”) the truth is that when we read scripture we actually end up using all three methods. When reading a tough passage you probably have asked yourself:

What did this passage mean to them 1000’s of years ago?
What is the “big picture” truth?
What does it mean for me today?

In a rough way these three questions parallel the three methods outlined above. So in one sense you are a biblical scholar engaging in complicated hermeneutical methods!

How to Read Your Bible (or How You Actually Read the Bible)

Today I want to continue our (unofficial) mini-series on hermeneutics. I never intended to start a series on interpreting the Bible but I guess thats what ended up happening. Last time we kicked off the series by looking at the parable in Luke 15:11-32. In doing this we saw how our different vantage points lead us to say different (although responsible) things about a text. The fact that there is a good amount of leeway for what makes a responsible interpretation led us to claim that interpretation is an art with certain sensibilities, and not exactly a science with a prescriptive method. Today we turn to two different ways to read a text, also Kevin Vanhoozer helps us consider the reader’s role in interpreting texts.

In Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation Kevin Vanhoozer sets the stage for understanding the role of the reader in New Testament interpretation. He helpfully points out that

“Reading is not merely a matter of perception but also of production; the reader does not discover so much as create meaning.” (13)

At first glance there seems to be something that’s off putting about thinking that the reader creates meaning with the text. In fact this quote might horrify some of you. (You might even think I am off my rocker and have bought into some sort or relativism.) Usually we think that we have to draw out the texts meaning by using objective, scientific methods. However the truth is that there are certain elements that prevent us from being capable of giving an objective reading of the text. The reader always brings some baggage to the text, whether that is the place of the reader, the gender of the reader, or the race of the reader. (This is exactly what we saw in our last post: That’s Not in the Text!!! )

Taking into account that the reader cannot be neutral to the text, the reader is faced with two options to make meaning, Vanhoozer lays them out as: the relationship of “reader-respect” and “reader-resistance.”

There is no way around it…. you bring your social, cultural, economic baggage to your interpretation. So when you read, you allow your “baggage” to create what you take to be your meaning. So you are left with two options:

You can approach the text respectfully, that is, you can try to allow the text to speak to you on its own terms.
You can resist the text, that is, you can push back against what the text is saying because it doesn’t fit your cultural paradigms.

So how do you read the scriptures? Are you a respectful reader or a resistant reader?

Kevin Vanhoozer: Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Discipleship is Relational

At its very core discipleship is a relational activity. Ultimately is about being faithful to God’s call to love the people around you. Its about loving these people enough to help them see how God is moving in their lives and help them get to where God wants them to be. Discipleship cannot happen outside of a relationship. It is not simply transferring information, rather discipleship is relational.

Watch: “The Heart of A Disciple Maker” by Francis Chan & David Platt

At Soma discipleship is our focus. Yes discipleship is a complicated word (or at least we make it a complicated word), but it really boils down to helping people become more like Jesus. That is the goal of discipleship, help people become more like Jesus. When discipling “leaders” our goal is to help develop leaders who look and lead like Jesus.

So what’s the reason we do discipleship? Is the reason that we do it simply because it is something we were commanded to do? By no means! We don’t simply do it because we are told to do it. The truth is God doesn’t simply care about external outward actions/appearances/religious activities. If he did then the Pharisees would be the heroes of the faith! So I’m not going to tell you “Man Up and do it! Its required!” Rather I want to tell you that if you have the right heart discipleship will be an overflow of your heart.

If you read 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 you quickly ome to realize that even the most impressive sacrificial actions are worthless if they are not empowerd by love. So ask yourself:

“Am I the type of person who could teach someone without loving them?”

I know I certainly am. I often find myself getting caught up with work and school. I often find myself going through the motions without loving others. I just disciple people because I “have to.” But that isn’t what Discipleship is about…. it isn’t simply about eaching people useful in (though you should). It isn’t simply about raising up new leaders (though you should). Its ultimately about loving on people. Its about being faithful to God’s call to love on the people around you.

Discipleship is about loving people enough to help them see their need for God and to see their need love and obey God in any context he has placed them.

When you are loving people, and disciplining others to become like Jesus you are gloryfing God and helping others to glorify God… and that is ultimately what life is all about.

Discuss: How Discipleship is a Relational Activity – 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (Questions are from Multiply)

Up to this point, would you say that your desire to make disciples has been motivated by love? Why or Why not?
Take some time to consider your existing relationships, especially your discipleship relationships. Describe your love for the people God has placed in your life. What evidence can you point to that shows that you love the people around you?
In addition to praying fervently, what practical steps can you take to increase your love for people?

Themes in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: Koinonia

Over the next few weeks we are going to be going through Paul’s letter to the Philippians. As you probably know Philippians is a very personal letter, it almost has the tone of an encouraging chat between two friends. Nevertheless this letter does have a point, there are reasons why Paul wrote this letter (its not that he was bored in prison and hand nothing better to do than write a letter). First Paul wanted to give them an update about how he is doing. Second he wanted to inform them about Epaphroditus. Third he wanted to express his thanks to the Philippians for their financial gift.

Over the next few weeks I want to highlight some prominent themes in this letter. Instead of focusing too much any specific verse each week I am going to focus on one important theme found in each of these chapters. Two major themes we will be talking about throughout these next few weeks are “rejoicing” and “fellowship” (koinonia). This week we will look at “koinonia,” hopefully it will spark some discussion.

Paul opens up the letter to the Philippians by praying a prayer of thanksgiving and joy because of the Philippians “partnership” in the gospel from the first day until now (1:5). However the word that Paul uses for partnership is a lot stronger than the way we often use “partnership.”

In Philippians 1:5 Paul uses the word koinonia; this word basically means “participation in something with someone.” It connotes “oneness.”

(I know that is kind of vague, but the word has a very wide range of meaning.) Usually this word gets translated as “fellowship.” Honestly I think using the word “fellowship” is a horrible translation, so I’m glad the ESV translated it as “partnership.” The word “partnership” connotes that you partner up in something with someone else. This is quite unlike our usual use of the word “fellowship.” The way we often use “fellowship” is very watered down. We use the word fellowship to denote all sorts of things, whether it be hanging out after church, having our “social” at our small group, or playing board games with our Christian friends (or maybe even having a church potluck!).

This sort of “fellowship” is certainly not what Paul had in mind!

Paul has in mind something a lot more weighty than this. In using the word koinonia he is bringing to his reader’s minds a sort of “oneness” together in the gospel. This is the same word that Paul will later use with reference to the Holy Spirit and to the sufferings of Christ. There is a sort of insoluble bond, a “oneness” we Christians experience together with the Holy Spirit. There is a sort of union, or “oneness”, we experience with Christ when on mission with Him. This is the same sort of “oneness” that Paul has with the Philippians. The “oneness” between Paul and the Philippians has served to advance the gospel. This “oneness” that has advanced the gospel has come primarily through financial gifts on behalf of the Philippians.

The fact that Paul and the Philippians experience koinonia (or “oneness”) in the advancement of the gospel should force us to ask ourselves some questions:

How does our koinonia with other Christians serve to advance the gospel? (John 17:20-23)
What does this passage say about how important it is to financially support the advancement of the gospel? It almost seems like there is an equal partnership between the one who preaches and the ones who support the one who preaches.

So as you think Philippians 1 here are some questions you might want to discuss:

If koinonia is so important for the advancement of the Gospel how are you experiencing koinonia (oneness) with other Christians?
Why is our koinonia such an important asset for mission?
Are you experiencing koinonia with anybody who is on the mission field (whether financially or in some other way)? How could you grow in this area?

That’s Not in the Text!!!

Recently I have been doing some thinking about how our contexts affect our reading of Scripture. In doing my own little case study of how this plays out in “real life” I came across three different interpretations of Luke 15:11-32: one by Donald Juel, one by N.T. Wright, and finally one by Allan Powell.

This parable (Luke 15:11-32), provides an interesting example of how:

One’s social location can affect how one interprets a text.

Lets start off by looking at Juel’s interpretation.

Juel sees this parable as ultimately being a parable about the older brother and titles it “The Lament of a Responsible Child.” He thinks this is an appropriate interpretation because it makes sense of the grumbling of the Pharisees towards Jesus about his eating with sinners. Thus it seems as though Juel might be reading this as a parable about having a legalistic attitude.

Wright on the other hand attempts to understand the parable in light of a 1^st century Jewish framework. He says that fresh on the minds of Jews at the time would be concepts of exile and restoration. Thus the audience would have heard this as a parable about Israel; Israel (the lost son) has finally returned from exile.

Finally Allan Powell presents various interpretations each explicitly within their location. Powell doesn’t really interpret it himself but rather he shows how our social location affects the interpretation. He gives the parable to various groups of interpeters: First he gives it to 12 American seminary students then he tells them recount it from memory. These students emphasized his wasteful attitude towards the money the father had given him. Then he gave the parable to some Russians. The Russians saw the parable as about the younger brother’s foolishness. Finally he gave it so some Africans. The Africans saw the sin as being in the society that didn’t help the brother.

Upon reading all of these interpretations, initially I thought, “yes that made sense, I can see how they got that interpretation.” Not once did I think,

“That is not in the text!!!”

I believe that all of the readings could be defended primarily because they make use of the context. Juel makes use of the narrative elements around the parable. Wright makes use of what he takes to be the historical context. Powell points out that the Africans (as well as the Russians and Americans) try to take seriously their own context. None of these readers are being irresponsible with their interpretation; they all back their readings with evidence why theirs is right. All of the readers are being responsible with the text to a certain extent. However, because there are so many ways to be responsible with the text: literary context, historical context, reader’s context it is difficult to say what constitutes a correct reading. Thus it is probably better to say that some readings are better than others; in saying this we must remember that interpretation is an art with certain sensibilities, and not a science with a prescriptive method.