Integrating Missionally » Theology

A Semiotic Scripture?

David Phillips — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:40:30 +0000

Last night, in one of the small groups I lead, we began the book of the Revelation. I have been called crazy by some for doing this and I realize this as I tread with fear and trembling into the journey.

As I was preparing for the introduction to our study, I came across a fascinating term used in Rev. 1:1. The English (NASB) says:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

The term in question is translated by the NAS “communicated it”. The Greek uses sémainó, the verb form of a word that means sign. The root of this work is the same root word from which the term semiotics is derived, semeiotikos, which means an interpreter of signs. Semiotics, as a refresher, is the study of sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols.

In speaking of this term in Revelation 1:1, Robert Mounce in The Book of Revelation (New International Commentary on the New Testament) notes the following:

The revelation is said to be signified to John. The Greek verb carries the idea of figurative representation. Strictly speaking it means to make known by some sort of sign. Thus it is admirably suited to the symbolic character of the book. This should ward the reader not to expect a literal presentation of future history, but a symbolic portrayal of that which must yet come to pass. (65)

So the book of the Revelation is a “sign”-ified book. It requires a semiotician to understand it.

In Acts 11:28, a prophecy of Agabus is introduced in a similar way, with “he indicated through the Spirit.” The word “indicated” is the same word, sémainó. Agabus was an astute semiotician, as he understood the sign-ified message of the Spirit.

The verb sémainó occurs three times in John, all in the context of Jesus “indicating” by what death he would die (John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19); i.e., Jesus predicted his dead by using the phrase “lifted up” as a description of his impending crucifixion. Jesus was sign-ifying how he would die and people needed to be able to read the sign(s) he was giving them so that they would be able to understand what was happening. Jesus was looking for semioticians.

Finally, in Matthew 16:3, Jesus tells the religious leaders “Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?” . The word for signs here is sémeion, the same root word used in the other passages. Jesus is chastising them for their inability to read the signs, in effect deriding them for not being semioticians.

Just after the event with the religious leaders, Jesus seems frustrated with his own disciples for being semioticians themselves. In verse 6, he says to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They thought he was talking about bread. Then he says in verse 11, “How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” It was then that they understood the sign. Verse 12 states, “Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

And then there is the confession of Peter in Matthew !6:13-20. Jesus asked the disciples:

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Based on the context, particularly because it is a context of signs, that God the Father finally allowed Peter to interpret the signs and he came to the conclusion that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Signs require interpretation. The interpreter for the disciples in Matthew 16 was Jesus. The interpreter in Acts 11 was the Spirit. The interpreter in John was Jesus himself. And in Matthew 16:13-20, the interpreter was God the Father.

As a result, what conclusions would you draw from the New Testament?

Copyright © 2008
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing an infringement of the copyright. (Digital Fingerprint:
63d78be34e7054de080da99a50c72238 (38.107.191.114) )

Book Notes: Making a Meal of It

David Phillips — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:29:51 +0000

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine posed a question to me regarding the Lord’s Supper. Having been a Baptist all my life, I didn’t have a broad theological understanding of this important aspect of Christian community, and my reading on it was limited. I took some time to gather some materials so that I could read and consider the Lord’s Supper from a broad spectrum of beliefs.

One of the books I read was Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper by Ben Witherington III. In this fine book, BW3 intently looks at the practice as described by Paul and as mentioned in the Gospels. He then compares that with the Passover meal and seeks to determine if the practice in the Gospels and in Paul are related to the Passover meal, and if so, how are the practices related. Witherington then traces the development of the practice through the ages. He notes the practice and meaning of it at the end of the first century and then though the second and third centuries. He traces its history through its development as a sacrament in the Catholic Church and through the practices of the reformers. He finally provides a broad-based theological understanding of the practice and makes suggestions on how we should carry out this important Christian practice.

Witherington’s conclusion is that the Lord’s Supper is not merely symbolic. A spiritual transaction takes place. He says, “It is an occasion when one not only remembers that Jesus shared a meal with his disciples, but approaches this meal in a worthy manner, which I take to mean realizing that this is our occasion to share a meal with Jesus. He is the unseen host of this meal.” (133) He continues:

The Lord’s Supper should be seen as a chance for a close encounter with Jesus, a chance for a moment of clarity and recognition in one’s life that Christ comes to meet us, bless us, forgive us, over and over again, and that we can and must actively participate in this joyful event. It’s not about magical rituals or medicinal elements; it’s about the living presence of Christ, which can either be honored or dishonored by how we partake of the meal…

The Lord’s Supper is an active sacrament; it requires active participation of taking, eating, drinking. It is not for those who can’t participate in it actively. They must be able to respond to the command to personally take it and eat it, and more importantly they must be able to discern both the body of believers around them and that this is a corporate, not an individual act and to discern as well that they are meeting the unseen Host, Jesus himself, at the Table. In other words, a modicum of faith or receptivity is required to worthily participate in the Meal…

It is a community ritual meant for the community to take together signifying their unity with Christ and with one another in and as the body of Christ. (134-135)

I think Witherington’s conclusions have validity. The Supper is more than symbolic, but in what way? This has been the age-old question, and I think Witherington answers it as well or better than anyone.

One of the great strength’s of this book is BW3’s expression of the social and cultural aspects of the Supper, particularly in Paul’s discussion. BW3 goes into great detail in explaining how this Meal would have been understood in the Corinthian world and how Paul was challenging the church to practice the Meal in light of that culture. I also think another great strength of the book is how he traces the understanding of Passover from Israel through the Essenes and finally to Jesus, then Lord’s Supper throughout Christian history and practice.

One of the more controversial aspects of the book is BW3’s assertion that Lazarus was the author of the Gospel of John. He does this in the context of trying to explain why the farewell discourse was most likely not a Passover event. He could be right on the farewell discourse not being part of the Passover meal, but an earlier meal. I will not comment on his assertion that Lazarus was the author of the Gospel, however, until I have time to spend studying other views.

All in all, I feel this is one of the more valuable books on the Lord’s Supper that you could read. It is an easy read, though thoroughly scholarly in scope.

Christocentric theology amidst a Trinitarian framework

David Phillips — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:44:30 +0000

Recently, I had a comment on a post about The Jesus Manifesto. The comment was a question and I answered the question in the comment stream but thought it might also make a good post. The question was, “I’m wondering if you have found a conherent way in which to articulate Christocentricity from a Trinitarian framework?” Here’s my response:

Christocentricity from a Trinitarian framework actually stems from this week’s lectionary text from John’s Gospel (16:12-15) this past week for Trinity week. It’s the unselfishness of the Godhead.

There is a humble give and take within the framework of the trinity. All that the Father has has been given to the Son. All that the Son has is declared by the Spirit. The Spirit acts as the conduit for all things from the Father through the Son.

The word “take” or “receive” in vs 14 is lambano which can mean either take or receive and as such caries a dual meaning in this case I believe. The Father is selfless enough to give. The Son is selfless enough to receive (not take). As a result, they do not withhold what they possess but all that they have is for the benefit of them all. Not only do they share it amongst themselves, they are unselfish enough to share it with the community of Faith (at large) whose unselfishness is then to be shared with the world.

And yet, the Spirit points back to Jesus. Phil 2 tells us that the unselfishness of the Father redirects praise to the Son. It’s their selflessness that allows them to point the praise back to Word-Made-Flesh.

Your thoughts?

On Baptist baptism and communion

David Phillips — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:55:54 +0000

This morning I awoke to a message from a friend. The friend is a former Catholic who is now a Southern Baptist. My friend still retains some of their Catholic concept of spirituality, in that it is formed through practices and is active, not a passive spiritual formation. I admit that I agree with my friend in this. Baptists are far too passive in spiritual formation, believing in practice that preaching and lecturing and being in church each week form the basis of spiritual formation.

Anyway, the question went like this:

My Sunday School teacher is teaching from Acts and stated that Catholics sacrifice Christ every Sunday via Communion and that this is not biblical because Jesus was the once and for all sacrifice. I was shocked by this and asked what was the difference between the Catholics doing it weekly and the Baptists doing it quarterly? His chief defense was that the Baptists don’t break the bread. I replied that that puny cracker would be reduced to dust if the preacher did and that I thought it was “pre-broken” for the sake of convenience in passing it out. What’s your take on this?

Here is my question: What would you say to my friend? Baptists believe communion to be a symbol, correct? Can communion be something more than merely a symbol, but not a commutation of grace through the act alone?

While I’m on the subject, another question that I would like your response to: if baptism is merely a symbol, why does the mode matter?

Mind you, I am not questioning my baptist upbringing, I am asking a question of the community at large. I would love your thoughts on one or both of these topics.

Book Notes: The Jesus Manifesto

David Phillips — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:27:33 +0000

It was a weeknight in September, 2008. Brenna and I drove from our home in Delaware to New Jersey. We were going to get to spend some time with Len Sweet at a nice steakhouse in Morristown, NJ. I remember three things from that evening. First, the food was amazing. Second, Len told us that he has only one requirement when he treats people: he won’t pay for your chicken! Third, Len asked me if I had read much of Frank Viola. I told him that I hadn’t. I had heard his name floating around in my doctoral cohort and there was a disparity of opinions about his book with George Barna called Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. But Len said something I haven’t forgotten. “Whatever you think about Frank,” Len said, “he always comes back to Jesus.”

That was entirely in line with what I had heard from Len in two years of doctoral work. “I’m not as concerned about what you believe as who you are in relationship with,” he told us. His point then is the same point he and Frank make in their new book, Jesus Manifesto: Restoring the Supremacy and Sovereignty of Jesus Christ.. Truth is a person and his name is Jesus. When we are in a relationship with Jesus, the Spirit will guide us into all truth, specifically, into a deeper relationship with Jesus. If we are centered around Jesus, then we are brothers and sisters, regardless of what we believe about eschatology, ecclesiology, or pharmacology. (Ok, that last one is not as important.) Len and Frank even mention in the book that they have not had discussions on these and other theological topics, and on some of these they may disagree. But they are deeply in love with Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, the incarnation of God, the creator and sustainer of all. He is what matters. And around Him, we can all join hands.

It reminded me of my own experience where I was challenged about who Jesus. It was a Thursday night during my latter college years. I went with three guys whom I had discipled earlier in my college years to restaurant called Shoneys. Three of us were committed to ministry full-time. In fact, at the time we all were either currently serving or had served on a church staff.

We sat there eating our meal and our discussion centered around the church. We were complaining about the church. We were frustrated by the church. We were experiencing what many who want to change their world experience. We had almost finished and the waitress dropped our check off beside me. Not long after she dropped it off, she returned to pick it back up and take it with her. I assumed that she had made a mistake and took the check to correct it. When she didn’t bring it back, I asked her for our check and she told me that someone had been taken care of the check. Stunned, we stood and in a louder than normal level said “Thank You!”. A voice from my right sounded: “Guys, got a minute?”. We turned to see a man sitting alone so we went over to talk with him.

He told us that he had come from Canada and owned a ski resort. He was in Huntsville, AL for a convention for a group of Christian men who worked in the marketplace. He had driven around the entire city of Huntsville and felt compelled to stop at this particular restaurant. He was seated two tables from us. And it was he who picked up our check that night.

He told us that he could hear our conversation. He noted that we talked a lot about the church. We griped and complained. We shared our frustrations. He also noted how we talked about the gospel. It was important and people were not sharing it with others. Then he noted specific people sitting around us. He told how they were listening as well. One lady, he said, was captivated by our discussion. Another was listening intently as well. I could see their faces in my head as he pointed where they had sat. Then he pointed out something that has haunted me and yet driven me ever since. He said to us four college guys, “You talked about the church and you talked about the gospel, but you never once mentioned the name of Jesus. You had the chance to point a whole section of people to the only one who could save them, the supreme sovereign of eternity and you didn’t. The church doesn’t save people. Jesus does. So guys, let me ask you, ‘What does Jesus mean to you’?” That night we went around the table and described what Jesus meant to us. He gave us a blessing and sent us on our way.

That experience transformed my life. Theology is great. The Bible is wonderful. But it is really all about Jesus. Nothing else. No one else. It is Jesus and Jesus alone. It is the name of Jesus that transforms life. No other name under heaven can do that. No other thing under heaven can do that. The most important thing we can do is have a deep and abiding relationship with Jesus. Everything in life flows out of that one relationship.

The book, Jesus Manifesto: Restoring the Supremacy and Sovereignty of Jesus Christ, is an expansion of a document the two released in 2009 with the same title. It is a call to come back to Jesus. Christianity is nothing without Jesus. Our lives are not to be centered around anything but Jesus. We should not be a gospel-centered, social-justice-centered, kingdom-centered church. We are to be a Jesus-centered community of Faith.

Len and Frank take the reader through the scriptures attempting to describe the indescribable person of Jesus, and they do a wonderful job. The authors challenge you to get a fresh vision of Jesus through the Old Testament and understand Him fully in the New Testament.

Christianity is, simply, Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not an ideology, a philosophy, a social ethic, a cause, a core value or a worldview. Christianity is “the ‘good news’ that beauty, truth and goodness are found in a Person—a real and living Person who can be known, loved, and experienced—and that true humanity and community are founded on connection to that Person.”

Christians have lost sight of the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ, replacing the gospel with the language of gospel, justice, values, self-help and leadership. The authors point to Paul’s letter to the Colossians as the key Scripture that will help the church recover an understanding of Jesus Christ who “is all and in all.” The Jesus presented by Paul “smokes brain cells in one’s effort to grasp Him. He embodies the inexplicableness of almighty God. This is the same Jesus you have today.”

“In a church filled with leader-oholics, justice-oholics, commandment-oholics, and doctrine-oholics,” it is essential that Christians comprehend Paul’s message, the authors say. With this fresh glimpse of Jesus, Sweet and Viola challenge their fellow believers to reject the “bestseller Christianity” that wraps up self-centeredness in spirituality, and to start living as “walking, breathing Jesus Manifestos.”

This may be the most important book you read this year. If we can fall passionately in love with Jesus and let the Spirit form us into the image of Christ, a movement can be born as Christians passionately in love with the all-sufficient, unselfish Jesus pour life into a dead world longing to be reborn.

The Language of God

David Phillips — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:48:44 +0000

This past Sunday was Pentecost Sunday. Most of my tribe does not celebrate Pentecost, primarily because I think we fear the mysterious nature of the Holy Spirit and also do not want to have anything to do with speaking in tongues. Also, we do not follow the Christian calendar, so we never really deal with it.

Pentecost is the reversal of the story in Genesis 11 of the tower of babble. In that story, the people were scared. The fear in their hearts motivated them to settle, not scatter. There is an emphasis in that story on settling and scattering. Scattering would lead to the break up of their family and cause them to enter into the mysterious nature of life as it was a journey into the unknown. They were seeking security.

They were scared to scatter so they settled, hoping that in settling they could grow into a great city-state, and making a name for themselves. In constructing this city-state, they wanted to build a tower that would give them access to God, access that would come on their terms. As God looked down on this, he was saddened. His attitude was “If they think they can do this, there is nothing they won’t try.” So he stopped it by inhibiting the people’s ability to understand each other. The lack of a similar language divided families, and as a result, the people gathered by the ability to understand and scattered to their own lands.

When we find the disciples and apostles gathered in a room in Acts 2, we begin to see the impact of Pentecost. The Spirit arrives and it appears these Christ-followers are able to speak in many languages and dialects. They are able to speak so that anyone who is present is able to understand in their own specific dialect. Was the event a miracle of speaking or hearing? Both. The text makes it clear that the apostles spoke in other languages. But it also makes it clear that the people heard in their own language and dialect. It’s all a matter of perspective. For the masses, they were able to hear-to-understand in their own dialect.

Here was a diverse group of people from different lands speaking and hearing in different languages. But they all understood what was spoken because of the language of God. The language of God was universal. The language of God was the Holy Spirit.

The sermon that followed and brought by Peter was a call to embrace the mysterious:

17 ‘In the last days,’ God says,
‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
18 In those days I will pour out my Spirit
even on my servants—men and women alike—
and they will prophesy.
19 And I will cause wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below—
blood and fire and clouds of smoke.
20 The sun will become dark,
and the moon will turn blood red
before that great and glorious day of the Lord arrives.
21 But everyone who calls on the name of the Lord
will be saved.’

All that would happen meant that the mysterious would become the new normal. Insecurity would become the new security. Spirit-led and Spirit language would be normal.

It is also important to note that the language of God always pointed them to Jesus. The language of God was not the Gospel. The language of God was not the scriptures. The language of God was the Holy Spirit, and He always pointed people to Jesus. He used the scriptures. He used the gospel. They were used to point people to Jesus. But the language of God was the Spirit.

And it is that Jesus who leads us to God. He is the only way to God.

Where do you end up?

David Phillips — Tue, 18 May 2010 09:14:05 +0000

I had a conversation recently with a friend. He is considering moving his church calendar from being ordered by the American calendar to the Christian calendar. He is not trying to celebrate all the feasts and days of saints, but to get away from the influence of the American civil religion and the consumerism that accompanies it, and ordering the church around the Christian calender, which in effect orders the church around Jesus.

Our church moved that way last year. I have moved to using the lectionary for preaching and I talk about the major emphases that come with the Christian calendar. We celebrated Ascension day last week and I used the lectionary texts to talk about the theological importance of the Ascension. We will deal with Pentecost this coming week.

In our discussions, I told him that he needs to know that moving in this direction, utilizing a prayer book, ordering your life and the life of the church around the Christian calendar, and employing resources and readings found in other denominations could lead you to being something other Southern Baptist. Part of that has to do with a complete lack of engagement by Southern Baptists with the Christian calendar and the theological meaning behind it, as well as the historical implementation of it by the early church. Another reason is that you have to go outside of Southern Baptist thought to find good, Christ-centric resources for spiritual formation.

I described my own journey through that process. The Christian calendar forms you and the church by centering your life around Jesus. It does not center you life around the gospel or the scriptures, but around Jesus. That is by design. And when you center your life around Jesus, you begin to see and think about things differently than what exists in most denominational frameworks.

I described for my friend a conversation I had with my coach in which he challenged me on where I was theologically. I told him:

I am not Methodist (or other forms of Weslyan theology) because I believe in eternal security and I still believe in immersion as the mode of baptism.
I am not Charismatic because I don’t believe in a second blessing or that tongues are required for salvation.
I am not Presbyterian because I do not believe in infant baptism.
I am not of the more liturgical denominations because I do not believe the sacraments convey grace.
And I am not a typical Southern Baptist, or should I say the current mode of Southern Baptist, because I am far too flexible in my relationships with others who center their life around Jesus, not a specific, hardline, Baptist theology and practice. I would like to think I am a historical Baptist connecting with the historical church of the first four centuries and helping my own church find a similar connection.

But I have no problem celebrating Jesus with people from each of these different backgrounds.

So my friend asked me, as I described my own journey, “Where do you end up?”

I said to him, “you end up where the Spirit takes you. And he always takes you to Jesus. And he wants to form you into a reflection of Jesus.” That is always where a Christo-centric shaped spiritual formation takes you. It always takes you to Jesus.

Those led by the Spirit are the Sons and Daughters of God. We are part of a new people being formed into the image of Christ by the Spirit. As such, our lives to be Christo-centric, not gospel-centric or kingdom-centric, or social justice-centric. We order our lives around a relationship with Jesus.

Whether you are Methodist or Baptist or Presbyterian or something else, when you order your life around Jesus and not denominational practices, or esoteric ideas, you end up talking and thinking and acting like Jesus. And that’s not a bad place to be.

The First Son of God was Adam. Now it’s us.

David Phillips — Mon, 17 May 2010 11:47:57 +0000

It hit me like a ton of bricks. I have read this passage many times, but this time it was there in front of God and everyone. It shook me to the core, so much in fact that I had to pause and ponder its implications.

Going through the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, Luke makes an astounding statement: the son of God is Adam. Read it with me:

34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (NAS emphasis mine)

Adam is called the son of God. But that was Jesus’ title! But wait, that is our title! At least those of us with the male genes. The women, of course, are called the daughters of God. (See I John 3:1, Romans 8:14)

So the first son of God (Adam) failed. The second son of God (Jesus) succeeded. Now the sons and daughters of God, those of us led by the Spirit, are being formed by the Spirit into the same nature as the Son of God, namely Jesus!

We really need to relearn that biblical anthropology!

Hello, Hello, Hello, Lord God Almighty

David Phillips — Sun, 16 May 2010 20:55:09 +0000

A friend of mine on facebook posted that at the beginning of church today, her 5 year old daughter looked over the Bulletin and comments, “this says we are going to sing ‘Hello, Hello, Hello, Lord God Almighty’ “. Of course the song they sang was most likely, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty,” but what a precious statement by her daughter.

If only we could open up all of our worthship gatherings with this attitude. If only we could open our lives to this statement! If we could invite Christ into every aspect of our life, and be led by the Spirit in all we do, life would be different. We would be different. Maybe you could awaken in the morning with those words on your lips: “Hello, Hello, Hello, Lord God Almighty.”

Thank you my 5 year-old prophetess and her mother who shared it with the world! What a beautiful reminder!

Psalm 47 – Sing Praise!

David Phillips — Sun, 16 May 2010 06:24:10 +0000

The Sunday Psalm!

Psalm 47 (New Living Translation)

For the choir director: A psalm of the descendants of Korah.

1 Come, everyone! Clap your hands!
Shout to God with joyful praise!
2 For the Lord Most High is awesome.
He is the great King of all the earth.
3 He subdues the nations before us,
putting our enemies beneath our feet.
4 He chose the Promised Land as our inheritance,
the proud possession of Jacob’s descendants, whom he loves.

Interlude

5 God has ascended with a mighty shout.
The Lord has ascended with trumpets blaring.
6 Sing praises to God, sing praises;
sing praises to our King, sing praises!
7 For God is the King over all the earth.
Praise him with a psalm!
8 God reigns above the nations,
sitting on his holy throne.
9 The rulers of the world have gathered together
with the people of the God of Abraham.
For all the kings of the earth belong to God.
He is highly honored everywhere.

Integrating Missionally » Theology

A Semiotic Scripture?

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Book Notes: Making a Meal of It

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Christocentric theology amidst a Trinitarian framework

Related Posts:

Related posts:

On Baptist baptism and communion

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Book Notes: The Jesus Manifesto

Related Posts:

Related posts:

The Language of God

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Where do you end up?

Related Posts:

The First Son of God was Adam. Now it’s us.

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Hello, Hello, Hello, Lord God Almighty

Related Posts:

Related posts:

Psalm 47 – Sing Praise!

Related Posts:

Related posts: