BS and Monty Python

As I commented earlier, I heard several people this last weekend quote Monty Python's "Life of Brain" movie.  I have no problem with this, in fact I was quite a big Monty Python fan in Jr. High.  But it was ironic that a joke made in that movie became the theme for several discussions on the interplay between Jewish and Christian communities under the Roman Empire in the first century.

In the last couple decades the common stance has been to see the early Christians as anti-imperial.  They sought to create the Kingdom of God as an opposing force to the Kingdom of Caesar.  This was a healthy move for Biblical Studies noting the many ways the biblical writers undermined the culture around them.  This view continues today, a whole slew of books look at the anti-imperial nature of the gospels and Paul's writing.  The question raised in Life of Brain is "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

This is a valid question, the answer that many of these early Bible and empire professors have given is "only a model of what not to do."  As if the Roman Empire only stood as the great antithesis to Christianity.  Which is partially true, the Roman Empire was antithetical towards the Kingdom of God but it also stood as a great model of organized structure, military technology, and sovereign ruling.  All these aspects are drawn out in the New Testament writings, look at John and Paul for many features of Roman understanding.  So, while the New Testament presents a competing kingdom to Roman, it also barrows from Roman life to design, share, and display this kingdom.  I'm looking forward to tracing more of the influences, both good and bad, of Rome on the first Christians.  This will also help us understand the complexities of life today, which is still plagued with the mix of influences from American politics, global economics, and contemporary Christianity, just to name a few.

Who has two thumbs and likes books?

This guy.  Thats right, I enjoy reading.  Which is usually not a problem.  It doesn't endanger my health and rarely is it the direct cause of suffering in my reality.  But it does cause some serious dilemmas.  Like my current situation.

I am at an annual meeting for nerds like myself, and there are a lot of them.  The Exhibition Hall is filled with books at extreme low prices.  Hence, the dilemma: do I spend my money on books? Or do I enjoy the city on New Orleans and go out to dinner?

Yup, you guessed it.  I'll go for the books.  Here are some recent titles that I am looking at, or that have come up in conversations here.  These are books that have to do with my area of concentration and will hopefully spark some MA Thesis ideas:

Warren Cater The Roman Empire and the New Testament : An Essential Guide. 
James C Scott Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts.
Simon Price Religions of Rome.


I will have to post some of the other interesting titles that come up in some of my other areas of interest, like Paul.  There are some great conversations going on here.  We will see what comes of these papers.  Maybe a few more books...


P.S. I have heard the line from Monty Pythons "Life of Brain," "What have the Romans ever done for us?" quoted four times in papers so far.

Branches in New Orleans

Currently I am spending vast amounts of time listening to some very smart people, and a few who like to think they are very smart, discuss their recent scholarship.  This morning I heard a great take on Paul's use of the olive tree metaphor.  The passage in Romans, mainly 11.24, speaks of wild olive branches being grafted into a natural tree.  The issue was brought by Mark Nanos that the verse is commonly translated as "broken off" or "cut off" as in the branches are completely removed.  This runs contrary to agricultural practice, which Mark went into from 1st c. sources, and helps form a misunderstanding of the argument Paul is making.  Now, Paul is not farmer and his metaphor does not work in actual tree pruning.  But  that is not the point.

The point Paul is stating is the state of Gentile converts.  Not the state of Israel, which is referenced as the branches that are "broken off."  Paul is commenting on inclusion of Gentiles into the tree, which is Israel in Christ.  Paul does not go into the state of "Jews," "Judaism," "Israel," in modern terms, as one single group, but continues his thought that salvation has come to all through the Christ event, rendering the church the Israel in Christ.  I was challenged by the argument to reconsider the role of the olive tree metaphor in Paul.  I think many of the older ideas about Paul's view of Israel, and Jews, are often not looked at close enough, and are simply brushed over with only a note about Paul's opposition to Judaism.  We cannot disregard the multiplicity of understandings, ideas, and meanings as to what it meant to be a first century Jew.  Modernity cannot be projected back on to the first century.

Well, I'm off to yet another session.  I'm sure much more will come up as the conference continues.  And a lot of books are being added to "the list."

Emerging Leadership Needs in the PC(USA)

So, I attended a discussion of leadership needs in the Presbyterian church with the Presidents of every seminary.  It was an interesting night with lots of big talk, of bold action in the future of the PC(USA).  This was good to hear but not very deep.

The discussion quickly turned to the usual debate of "others."  Personally, this is a waste of time.  There is no point in trying to hash out a a definition of "multiculturalism" and trace the history of the word.  People today are more aware of the differences in the people around them.  The subjectivity of human experience leads many to the recognition of value in all of humanity.  The debate then over multiculturalism is not an issue.  The issue is the old white guys, a.k.a. presidents of PC(USA) seminaries, coming up with agreeable way of talking about changes they cannot stop or slow.  The PC(USA) is losing people for a number of reasons but "multiculturalism" is not one of the reasons.  It is a characteristic of the church.

In the midst of the attempt at defining a Presbyterian way of dealing with "multiculturalism," the President of Princeton Theological Seminary remarked, "I am a Brit and we are dealing multiculturalism in a different way.  We do not have the shameful past that you do."  WHAT? The British don't have a shameful past of slavery and colonialism? This blew me away.  The President of Princeton Theological Seminary was disregarding his own countries history to point out that multiculturalism an issue for Americans not for the British.

The biggest issue with the discussion was that it was trying to come up with a way of talking about "others." And not finding ways to draw them into the church.  As long as there is an us/them nature to the way Christians talk, people will be pushed away.  PC(USA) must update itself, and this can talk many forms but, at the heart the Presbyterian church, and many other churches, must be a way of speaking to the situations in which people live.  We must recognize the humanity of all and build our churches, and leaders, to address the needs of humanity.