Today I read a couple of posts. The first on not buying into an eschatological belief about politics is always something of an ever necessary reminder. If you read, also read some of the comments to get hold of what is / is not being said.
It is titled:
Dear Christian: If the Thought of Either Romney or Obama Getting Elected Makes You Fearful, Angry, or Depressed, You Have What we Call a Theological Problem
All political regimes are utopian. Communist, socialist, fascist, monarchic, and democratic. All of them.
A great reminder. Yesterday around 2 million were on the streets of Barcelona, calling for a divorce from Spain, independence and to become the next state of Europe. Maybe they have been wronged, maybe the current government is not moving in the right direction… maybe. I have my political views, but neither left nor right are right. All systems are fallen, and Jesus informed a certain Roman puppet that his kingdom was not of this domination system.
A good reminder too – I have some chapters in Revelation to finish!!!
The second is by Andrew Perriman entitled:
No other name by which we should be saved
An excellent post – as so often taking a different take on the issue because of a strongly narrative reading.
Here’s how it starts:
I am not a universalist. I do not think that the New Testament teaches that everybody will be “saved”, though it appears that the political landscape of the new creation will be more complex than we may have thought. The framing soteriological argument in the New Testament is not that humanity needs to be saved (in a universal present) but that Israel needed to be saved (in a particular past).
An excellent post and a reminder that I need to get back to a few comments on the issue I started with the blog ‘Between Extremes’.
Thanks for putting these two posts together. They inform each other very nicely. I’d seen Andrew’s post because I follow along but not Peter Emms. Must admit, I winced when I saw that he was relying on his audience understanding the word eschatology, and judging from the comments, it might have been an assumption too far. Still, it goes to show how valuable a good editorial stance is. A very neat pairing.
I liked the response to a reader (12.59 on 12/09) I think you misread part of my post. You are also helping me make my point.
A nice response – wish I could be so to the point!!
I wish I could be that gentle. But it does prove the point that what happens in the head has nothing necessarily to do with what is written…. now where have we heard that before.
I also wish I had the strength to engage with Andrew, although I came close to making a response with this latest post. I so appreciate the rigour of the historical narrative and his insistence on reading forwards. But it is so provocative in terms of how the bigger narrative must therefore be framed. And I miss the dance marathon that went on between him and Peter Wilkinson, I found that the way they kept talking past each other was really helpful in seeing the shape and the gaps between the arguments.
Martin, thanks for the Emms link in particular. Haven’t come across him before.
My method of avoiding feeling fearful, angry or depressed these days is to only read from websites where I agree wholeheartedly with the author!
Dr Emms goes straight onto my bookmarks list just behind 3generations.eu
Come on I bet you all do the same right?
Nige
Nigel – I came across him a few month back. He has some great takes on reading the OT: how to read it progressively.
It’s allways fun to hear someone articulate more progressive frameworks while remaining within the traditions from which the questions emerge (something I have not been entirely able to do). Here is Peter Enns giving an overview to a lot of the issues that are so very hot at present.
http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/2012/09/the-nature-of-scripture-and-the-question-of-evolution-with-peter-enns/