Wolters' and Goheen's Bible Overview

I'm always on the look-out for succinct overviews of the Bible's story. Practically speaking, a working knowledge of Bible's big picture helps heaps. For instance, it gives you a preliminary sense of what any given Bible passage is about (just by virtue of *where* it is in the Bible).

Recently, I came across this "dramatic" overview by Al Wolters and Mike Goheen. I think it's great.

“The Bible tells a single story, from the origin of all things in Genesis 1 to the consummation of all things in Revelation 22. One way to trace the flow of the biblical story is to describe it as a drama that unfolds in six acts. In act one God creates the world as his kingdom. His original purpose for the creation is revealed and he pronounces it very good (Gen. 1). Human beings are created as God’s image to develop and care for the creation in communion with God (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15). In act two the whole of God’s good creation, including all of human life, is contaminated by human rebellion (Gen. 3). A tension now emerges in the narrative between the goodness of creation and the evil that defiles it. This tension demands a resolution.

In act three God announces that resolution: He will crush sin and the disastrous effects that were unleashed by Adam and Eve’s rebellion (Gen. 3:15). He chooses and forms a special people with the mission to bear his redemptive purpose for the world (Gen. 12:1-3; Ex. 19:3-6). They are called to be a community that embodies God’s original good creational design for human life. This people is placed on the land to be a light to the nations and a channel of God’s redemptive power to all peoples. God gives them the law, the sacrificial system, leaders called to be priests, kings and prophets, and much more — all to nourish a life that points to God’s intention for all people. God’s purpose appears to fail as the power of sin is too deeply rooted in the heart of Israel, and she is overcome by the darkness of her pagan neighbors. Yet through the prophets God promises that a future Saviour will usher in a worldwide and never-ending kingdom in the power of the Spirit. The world will be renewed and sin and its effects forever done away with.

In act four that promise is kept when Jesus of Nazareth steps onto the stage of history. He announces that he has been sent to realize the expectation of Israel and to fulfil Israel’s calling by bringing God’s salvation to a broken world (Lk. 4:18-19). His announcement is that the kingdom of God has arrived, that God’s power by the Spirit to liberate and heal creation is now present in him (Mark 1:14-15; Matt 12:28). His life reveals and demonstrates the kingdom. He gathers Israel to be a rallying point for all nations. His death accomplishes the victory of the kingdom. His resurrection guarantees the reality of the kingdom.

Before the resurrected Christ ascends to the Father he gathers together the disciples, the nucleus of a newly gathered Israel, and gives them their marching orders: “As the Father sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21). This defines the existence of the community of Christ-followers: they are called to continue the witness to the kingdom that Jesus began. What Jesus did in Israel the church is to do in the whole world. The continuing mission of this community to witness to the kingdom constitutes act five of the biblical story. This era of witness” has now lasted about two thousand years and will continue until Jesus returns to complete his work of renewal. That final work of the judgement and renewal of the entire creation constitutes the sixth and final act of world history.” (Creation Regained, 123-24, bold emphasis added)

I'd be tempted to divide act four, so that the lived-experience of Israel (with its climax in the kingdom) stood a little separate from the latter Old Testament prophets. Their vision of the coming salvation (albeit in the language of what came before) is so grand that it eclipses the experience of Israel under David and Solomon, and paves the way for something far great (Jesus!).

That said, I reckon Wolters and Goheen have done us a real favour here.

I like striving for excellence. Stetzer says, beware.

Recently, I've been ticking through Ed Stetzer's (et al.) little book, Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches That Reach Them. In many ways, it's pretty standard-issue Stetzer--he draws on church practice right across the spectrum, bases his strategies in solid research, but holds tight to his own evangelical moorings throughout.

It's worth a read, especially if you can bear reading a lot of stats (or, if you can bring yourself to skim-read them, or even just skip to the second half!).

On the way through, he makes a few "I'm letting my guard-down" kinda comments. Here was one that caught my eye especially. Why? Because I'm naturally inclined to implement systems/processes/policies that guard against sloppiness. I like striving for excellence. Stetzer reckons I oughta be careful:

"I am going to go out on a limb and say that one of the biggest causes of a lack of authenticity in churches today is when a church values excellence over honesty. OK--there--I said it. Excellence can be an authenticity killer. […] When our desire to appear excellent or polished outweighs our desire to be seen as broken, fallen sinners in desperate need of God's redemptive gift of grace, there is a real problem. […] What will it take? One leader willing to be vulnerable can bring a sense of freedom to a congregation caged by fear." (Lost and Found, 204).

Some ways for me to apply:

• (As a preacher) make sure I include how the passage hit me between the eyes, not just what I reckon should hit my congregation between the eyes (are we really that different, anyway)?
• Think carefully about what to include in the prayer of corporate confession (or whatever it looks like in your liturgy). Make it real.
• Laugh it off when the systems all fall over and my dream for excellence turns into a nightmare of sloppiness.

Foreigners, twice over, a long time ago.

Prickly subject, in our today's climate, I know.  But this post is first about an ancient experience of foreignness.

In preparation for my classis exams (a step toward ordination in my denomination), I recently read the 'introduction'* to Karen Jobes' commentary on 1 Peter (BECNT series). It got me thinking about our posture and compassionate response (or lack of it) towards asylum seekers in our time--be they Christians, or not.

Jobes has a novel take on the significance of the term 'foreigners' in 1 Peter 1:1 (and that metaphor elsewhere in Peter's letter).

In summary, Jobes challenges the long-established consensus that Peter uses the terms foreigner, alien, etc. purely metaphorically. Yes, of course, Peter's making use of it as metaphor and so connects his readers with Abraham's/Israel's experience and heritage. But Jobes makes the case that the original recipients were literally foreigners in their own setting--not merely spiritually-metaphorically. That's what makes it such a fitting metaphor.

Specifically, she identifies the recipients as (the Christians among) those sent out from Rome under the reign of Claudius to colonise the regions Peter names in 1:1. These people, she argues, were (likely) "Jews" (including Christians and Gentile converts to Judaism and Christianity), who were deemed a little too troublesome for life in Rome, and so were deemed good candidates for relocation.

Consequently, alienation was their experience twice over: First, because they're unwelcome in Rome (on religious grounds, especially). But second, not only are they not-native to the regions they're colonising, but on top of that, they likely received some measure of preferential treatment from Rome--something that likely resulted in some resentment amongst their new neighbours.

It's that "twice-alientated" angle that made me think of the plight of refugees and asylum seekers in our present context.

I'll contain myself to one reflection: we Christians should be especially attuned to the plight of those alienated from the world around them (us), especially those twice-alienated: unwelcome at 'home', and deemed unwelcome (by some) as they approach new shores.

*An 'introduction' in a biblical commentary is an important section that can run to more than a hundred pages, and talks about stuff like who wrote the book (of the Bible) in question, it's intended audience, when/where, etc.