realmealministries.org

Here is another draft/snippet from my forthcoming book (re)aligning with God.

Genesis 3 marks the watershed moment in humanity’s walk with God. Before Gen 3, men and women enjoyed endlessly open and free relationships with God, the created world, and one another. They lived in the world described and assumed by Genesis 1:1–2:25. Genesis 3:1–7 narrates the disastrous conversation between Eve, Adam, and the serpent. Bonhoeffer’s calls this encounter the “first conversation about God.” This is a sublime observation. The root of humanity’s rebellion is the idolatrous objectification of God. In Genesis 2, humanity freely conversed with God. In Genesis 3, God moves from subject to object. The serpent tempts Eve and Adam. At issue is the trustworthiness of God. The serpent denies that God can be trusted. Humanity needs to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because God is intentionally withholding something good and desirable from humanity. In essence, the existential question faced by Eve is this one: Do I trust that God has my best interests at heart? This is the fundament question that all people face. In the context of Genesis 1–3, God has demonstrated his trustworthiness and care for humanity by providing a idyllic setting in Eden, abundant food, authentic relationships between men and women, purposeful vocation as keepers of creation and regents of the Creator, and unfettered access to himself. God has gifted humanity with access to all sources of food except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This exception serves as the only prohibition that God gives to humanity. Otherwise humanity is endlessly free to fulfill God’s creation affirming mandates. Yet it is the prohibition against eating the fruit of a single tree that serves as the impetus for the temptation facing Eve and Adam. Thus from the beginning humanity’s sin and rebellion against God is irrational and astonishing given God’s kindness and grace to humanity. Humanity was supposed to exercise dominion over the created world, but instead allows a serpent to usurp authority and lead the first man and woman away from the Creator God. In the conversation with the serpent, God becomes an object rather than the subject of a moment-by moment-relationship. Trust is broken. Apart from dependence on and trust in God, humanity goes its own way and eats the forbidden fruit. The effects are tectonic. Adam and Eve feel the breech immediately. Their new knowledge illuminates only their own nudity for which they feel shame. They hide from God.

In the aftermath of their decision, God comes looking for his prized creation. God does not hide from humanity; humanity hides from God. This is the profound irony of sin. Adam and Eve attempt to reach beyond their creaturely status and tragically fall well below the potential for which they were crafted. Their decision to eat from the tree causes immediate breeches in their relational web. They have already experienced their own nakedness and the separation that they now sense between their once naked and one-flesh bodies. Their unfettered access to God becomes a liability as they are fearful at the once welcomed sound of God’s approach. Yet the first words out of the Creator’s mouth are “Where are you?” (3:9) God’s response to sin is an immediate attempt to re-engage humanity relationally. this line demonstrates God’s continued engagement with humanity despite their disobedience. God doesn’t withdraw from Creation – he goes looking for his lost people. The verb used for God’s pursuit of humanity is qr’ “called.” The Lord calls out to a humanity that has alienated itself through its actions.

Humanity’s rebellion has consequences (Gen 3:14-24). God draws out of Adam and Eve the details of their conversation with the serpent and their actions. The serpent is downgraded from its high place in the animal world to a creature, which will henceforth craw about on its belly. Adam and Eve will face a daunting new world. Their vocation of filling the earth will now by complicated by painful childbirth and the relational brokenness. Gen 3:16 describes a new power dynamic between the sexes. No longer will the relationship be rooted in mutuality. Men and women will focus on issues of power and attempt to dominate one another. Humanity also will experience the created world as an adversary. Humanity will toil over the earth to maintain life. Easy access to food and sustenance ends. The climax of sin’s consequences is humanity’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Access to the tree of life and immortality ends for all people from Adam and Eve onwards. As Paul will pen years later, “…through one man sin entered into the world and through sin came death. Thus death spread through all humanity because all have sinned” (Rom 5:12).

A missional reading or hermeneutic recognizes the devastating effects of human sin on God’s creational design. However, it also highlights the character of God in response to Adam and Eve’s transgression. We have already observed that God pursues humanity in the aftermath of the garden. God does not speak words of condemnation, but rather calls out to humanity, “Where are you?” One of the distinctive features of the divine–human relationship is the capacity for verbal communication. This does not end with the entrance of sin. The relationship between God and humanity has changed, but verbal revelation remains. Moreover Gen 3:21 records an additional act of God’s grace and mercy. The immediate result of Adam and Eve’s consumption of the fruit of the forbidden tree was the sudden realization of their own nakedness. This marks the irony of their disobedience. They were seeking wisdom and instead discover nakedness through their folly. They move from “naked and unashamed” in chapter two to “naked and ashamed” in their heightened awareness. Yet, instead of leaving them exposed and humiliated, God kindly provides a suitable covering for the man and woman. God’s love and compassion for humanity, even when men and women are at their worst, will remain a hallmark of God’s character and actions. It serves as a model for God’s people as we seek to engage the world with the Gospel.

What do you think?

© 2010 Brian D. Russell

Photo source

missional hermeneutics
missional hermeneutic
book of Genesis

Greg Boyd writes “Revelation and the Violent ‘Prizefighting’ Jesus“. In this blog essay, Boyd reflects on the violent language and symbolism of revelation. He includes helpful bibliographical information for those interested in further study.

Eddie Arthur blogs “Missionary Confidential: When Sympathy Turns Demeaning.” This blog was originally published here. This essay deals with the unintended consequences of short term mission trips, but it has implications for our own missional outreach. People can never be treated simply as projects.

The Western has lost its faith in the shadow of church steeples. – Alex McManus

Why a missional reading? What is the rationale for a missional hermeneutic?

1) Mission is central to Scripture. Christopher Wright in Mission of God talks about shifting from reading Scripture for a basis for mission to understand that there is a missional basis for the Bible. The Bible is the testimony of God’s mission. God gave us Scripture to guide & shape us to live in the power of the Holy Spirit as the people whom he created us to be.

2) Christendom practices approached “Christian” education principally as learning what to believe and how to understand reality. It is vital to learn to think Christianly. But in today’s climate where the very claims of Christianity are not widely accepted or even understood, any approach to Scripture that merely increases the knowledge of insiders is in danger of making the Gospel itself more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world. A missional reading demands a reading of the text from within a context of mission in which followers of Jesus are engaged not merely with increasing their own grasp of their own faith but are actively engaged with the World in order to make disciples. Christian education therefore needs to have as its goal the making of disciples in the biblical sense of the world: disciples who follow Jesus in the mission of making more disciples. Erwin McManus (Unstoppable Force, 72) wrote, “A theological construct for interpretation finds success in the attainment of knowledge. The more you know, the more mature a Christian you are thought to be. And yet knowledge of the Bible does not guarantee application of the Bible. To know is not necessarily to do. When the construct applied to the Bible is missiological, you engage the Bible to discover the response required of your life.”

3) A missional reading or hermeneutic pushes the reader beyond a self-referential reading. If we constantly ask questions such as “How does this text shape my own understanding of what God is doing in the world?” or “What sort of persons do I need to become in order to live out the story in the text?” or “What type of community does this text assume and how does our community of faith measure up?”, we are forced beyond “morning devotions” or “quiet time” as an end in itself. Our reading becomes revolutionary and catalytic for recapturing the sense of movement that characterized the earliest churches.

4) A missional reading pushes both the reader and his/her community of faith to seek constant (re)alignment with God’s work in the world. Conversion is the goal of biblical interpretation.

5) A missional reading presses the reader to read Scripture from the frontier rather than in a privileged position of power. Just as the original recipients of Scripture found themselves a minority in the World (and often a disenfranchised and marginalized minority), communities that deploy a missional reading truly grapple with how to live in the world without being of the world.

6) A missional reading drives individuals and communities to action. If we read the Bible only for the church, we will engage only the church. If we read the Scripture for the World, we will continue to engage the world.

7) A missional reading connects holiness (character), community, and mission. If God’s vision for the community of faith is to become a missional community that reflects God’s character in and for the world, then a missional reading is crucial because it understands essence of God’s people around three interlocking themes: mission, holiness, and community. Why does this matter? Because instead of isolating these, we see them in a vital symbiosis. We can talk about a missional holiness, a missional community, a holy community, etc. A community is not biblical unless it is missional and holy. God’s people are not missional apart from holy character and a community. God’s people are not holy unless they are missional and in community. Thus, a missional reading is ultimately not a fragmented way of reading Scripture but an integrated one which holds together the deepest themes of Scripture and allows them their voices to be heard again clearly.

What do you think?

© 2007 Brian D. Russell (Revised and expanded 9/2010)

The goal of biblical interpretation is conversion. Period. People may read the Bible for any number of reasons, but God gave us the Scriptures to guide and shape us to live under the power of the Holy Spirit as the people whom he created us to be.

As we begin to think about what it means to read the Bible in light of God’s mission, we must return to the beginning of the Gospel. In Jesus’ initial words of proclamation, I think that we find a starting point for engaging the Scriptures.

Matt 4:17 “(re)Align yourselves continually for/because God’s long-awaited era and realm of salvation is now present with me.”

What is the proper response to Jesus’ announcement and embodiment of the Kingdom? Realignment.

Context: Audience
Was Jesus talking to insiders or outsiders?
Jesus begins his ministry on the margins of society in Galilee. He does not launch his work from the epicenter of Jerusalem.

Core Message: Arrival of the Kingdom
Jesus’ core message is the announcement of God’s kingdom.

Response: (re)alignment
Repentance involves a continual and ongoing realignment.

Result: Creation of a Missional Community that reflects and embodies the Kingdom
Jesus immediately calls disciples and creates a new people through whom God will advance his kingdom.

Movement – following Jesus = following Jesus into the world on mission
Community

A Missional Hermeneutic: GPS
A missional hermeneutic is an approach to Scripture that sees the Bible calling all persons to a continual/ongoing (re)alignment in light

Global Mission
Persons in community
Spirit transformed

© 2010 Brian D. Russell

Here are exegetical/theological/homiletical notes on Ruth 1:8-18.

The book of the Ruth is a story of community, commitment, and faithfulness. The book of Ruth is set during the time of the Judges. As we’ve witnessed the past five weeks, the days of the Judges were marked by disobedience, idolatry, oppression, and chaos. The book of Ruth offers us a contrasting portrait to that of the book of Judges. The book of Ruth demonstrates that authentic community and faith can endure and triumph even in times of chaos and uncertainty.

The immediate background to our Scripture lesson is the decision of a couple from Judah, Elimelech and Naomi, to migrate to the land of Moab due to a famine in the land of Israel. While in Moab, Elimelech died and their two sons Mahlon and Chilion married Moabite women named Orpah and Ruth. This cross-cultural dimension of the book of Ruth adds richness and depth to the story. In the biblical narrative, the Moabites were descendants of Lot (Gen 19:30-38). Moab and Israel were often adversaries, but there was no law against intermarriage between Israelites and Moabites. The presence of a Moabite heroine in Israel’s Scriptures demonstrates an openness to outsiders on the part of God’s people. We saw this earlier this Summer in the case of Rahab of Jericho.

During their ten years in Moab, Malon and Chilion also die without producing any children through their marriages. Naomi is now alone with her two daughters-in-law. She takes the decision to migrate back to Judah because news has reached her that the LORD is providing food to relieve the famine. Orpah and Ruth choose to accompany Naomi.

Ruth 1:8-18
1:8-9 Naomi Releases Her Daughters-in-Law

Our printed lesson begins with Naomi’s attempt to persuade Orpah and Ruth to return the homes of their mothers. Interpreters debate the significance of Naomi exhortation to return to the mother’s home versus the father’s home, but this does not seem significant to the story as Boaz will later commend Ruth for leaving the house of her father and mother (2:12). The best explanation for the reference to the mother’s house is that this is a wish for them to remarry. The house of the mother thus refers to the practice of arranging marriages in the tent or sleeping area of the mother. Naomi is not sending Orpah and Ruth out of any malice. Rather she is attempting to extend kindness and generosity to them given her own marginalized and destitute state as an elderly widow living in a foreign land. She has nothing to offer these young women. There are no other sons of hers for Orpah and Ruth to marry.

In verses 8b-9, Naomi extends a word of blessing to Orpah and Ruth. This is a blessing offered in the name of the LORD. We have already heard that the LORD was again providing food in Judah, but this is the first time in the book of Ruth that we have a sense of the personal faith of a character. Clearly Naomi continues to recognize the LORD as her God even though she has resided in Moab for a decade. This is significant, especially in contrast to the repeated cycles of idolatry practiced in Israel during the days of the Judges. In this respect, Naomi is exemplary in her generation.

The core of Naomi’s blessing is a wish that the LORD “deal kindly” with Orpah and Ruth. The Hebrew word translated “kindly” is hesed. It occurs three times in Ruth (1:8, 2:20, and 3:10). In each case, it is associated with the LORD. Hesed is one the core attributes of the LORD. It means more than simply “acting nicely.” It captures a whole host of ideas such as “steadfast love, reliability, loyalty, and faithful commitment.” It is a relational term. It is a key theological term that expresses the extent of God’s commitment to God’s people. When God’s people celebrate the LORD’s goodness and saving power in Ps 136, the repeated refrain is “his steadfast love [hesed] endures forever.”

It is crucial to recognize that Naomi’s blessing is on behalf of two outsiders to Israel–the Moabite women Orpah and Ruth. The people of God do not have a monopoly on God’s grace nor can they alone exhaust its supply. Moreover it is a wish for the LORD to show his hesed to them in Moab. Naomi demonstrates an expansive understanding of the LORD’s love that extends it beyond the borders of Israel. Her blessing reminds us that God is indeed Lord of the nations. God’s love and grace is available to all persons everywhere. Ps 36 captures this aspect powerfully: Your steadfast love, O Lord, extends to the heavens (36:5)…How precious is your steadfast love, O God! All people may take refuge in the shadow of your wings (36:7).

Naomi offers this blessing for Orpah and Ruth because they have exhibited this same kindness to her and her deceased husband and sons. This is a remarkable statement about experiencing grace and kindness from outsiders to our faith traditions. Orpah and Ruth, Moabite women, have lived lives of committed love in their dealings with Naomi and her family.

Verse 9 give specifics to Naomi’s blessing for Orpah and Ruth. She desires for both women to return to their families of origin so that they may remarry. Presumably such unions would produce sons and daughters—the very elements missing from their marriages to Naomi’s sons. In other words, Naomi is offering Orpah and Ruth a tangible future as well as security when they reach her age. She seals her blessing of Orpah and Ruth with a kiss.

1:10 Orpah and Ruth Refuse to Leave
Orpah and Ruth respond with weeping. They do not want to leave Naomi. In verse 10, they proclaim their desire to follow Naomi back to Judah to reside with her people.

1:11-14 Naomi Persuades Orpah
Naomi responds to her daughters-in-law by forcing them to confront the seriousness of their situation. There is no viable reason for Orpah and Ruth to accompany her. She has nothing of value to offer them. In verse 11, Naomi reminds them that she does not have any more sons for them to marry. In ancient Israel, there was a custom known as Levirate Marriage (Deut 25:5-10) that entitled a widowed woman whose marriage produced no sons to marry the brother of her deceased husband in order to produce sons to carry on the name of the deceased. This is not an option for Orpah and Ruth—there are no more sons. In verses 12-13, Naomi draws out her point more fully. It is not simply a matter of not currently having any more sons. It is that she herself is too old to remarry so it is not even theoretically possible for Naomi to have additional sons down the road. Furthermore, as Naomi continues to force Orpah and Ruth to draw the inevitable conclusion that they should return to their families, Naomi reminds them that even if she could find a husband and have a son in her old age it would be years and years before they would be ready for marriage. They must not waste the intervening years waiting for a husband whom she will never be able to provide.

In the second half of verse 13, Naomi ends her appeal by expressing her sense of forlornness and forsakenness. Her life has taken a profound turn for the worse. She is a stranger in a foreign territory. She is a widow. She is elderly. She has lost both of her sons. And now she recognizes that she will lose her daughters-in-law because she is unable to care for them. Life has become bitter. When she returns home to Bethlehem, she will tell the women who greet her that her name is no longer “Naomi” which means “sweet” or “pleasant” but instead her name is now “Mara” which means “bitter” (see 1:19-20). Moreover she sees this tragic turn of events to be the LORD’s doing. Given the reality that Naomi believes that God is acting against her, there is absolutely no reason for Orpah and Ruth to stay with her. She is bad news.

Naomi’s second appeal produces more weeping. But this time the force of her arguments appear to carry the day as Orpah departs with a kiss. But shockingly Ruth clings to her. She hangs on to Naomi and steadfastly refuses to let go. Notice that our narrator says nothing bad about Orpah. She left with the emphatic blessing and affirmation of Naomi. Her leaving simply highlights the radical level of Ruth’s commitment.

1:15 Naomi’s Final Appeal to Ruth
Naomi attempts a final time to send Ruth back to her own people. Orpah has departed so Ruth has even less reason to stay with Naomi. She should follow the example of her sister-in-law and rejoin her own people and her own gods. This is an appeal for Ruth to embrace her origins as a Moabite. Naomi’s suggestion to return to her own gods must have seemed an appealing one given that Naomi herself believes that the LORD is against her.

1:16-18 Ruth Clings to Naomi
It is now Ruth’s turn to speak. What follows is one of the most powerful statements of unconditional commitment to another person in the Scriptures. Ruth steadfastly casts her lot with Naomi.

In the first half of verse 16, Ruth rebukes Naomi and implores her to stop trying to send her away. The language is stronger than our translation suggests. “Leave you” elsewhere is rendered “forsake you.” This is the same language that we encountered in Josh 1:5 when the LORD promised, “I will never forsake you.” Ruth is as fully committed to Naomi as the LORD was to Joshua. She will not break fellowship with her mother-in-law.

In verses 16b-17, Ruth describes the extent of her commitment to Naomi. It is extraordinary. She fully commits herself to the person of Naomi. She promises to stay with her until death separates them. She is willing to forsake her homeland, her ethnicity, and her religion to stay with Naomi. This is a complete conversion on the part of Ruth. She essentially declares herself to be an Israelite and accepts an uncertain future by casting her lot with Naomi. She aligns herself fully with the LORD by concluding her pledge with an oath taken in the name of the LORD.

Ruth’s act of faith is stunning. She commits to following Naomi and forsaking all that she knew without any tangible promises of a new or even a better life. She accepts the LORD as her God even though Naomi has expressed her belief that the LORD is against her. She chooses to stay with a widowed old woman when she had been encouraged to return home and take a new husband among her own people.

Naomi must have been deeply moved. Who wouldn’t be? Verse 18 simply notes that Naomi recognized Ruth’s determination to stay with her and ended the debate.

I am looking forward to participating in the Catapult Conference in a a couple of weeks. There is a great lineup of speakers: Alan and Deb Hirsch, Michael Slaughter, Reggie McNeal plus a wide variety of Breakout Sessions. I am looking forward for the opportunity to meet some of these authors, thinkers, and practitioners from whom I’ve already learned much.

I have been asked to teach about missional hermeneutics. This is exciting. I have focused my recent research, writing, and teaching on a missional approach to reading the Bible (see my essay “What is a Missional Hermeneutic?“). I’ve never considered this an academic exercise. Instead, I have worked to help pastors and other Christ followers to read Scripture through the lens of mission because I believe that this approach to Scripture arises out of a close reading of the Bible itself and is absolutely necessary for our post-Christendom contexts in the Western world.

As such I will be making three different presentations at Catupult:
1) A Bible Study on Matt 4:17-22. Introducing a missional hermeneutic as a call to (re)align continually with God.

2) Breakout Session: “Reading Scripture in the Mission Field”
What does it mean to read Scripture in light of our 21st century post-Christian context? How do we interpret the Bible in ways that both unleashed God’s people to live missionally in the world and at the same time invite preChristians to join the Christ-following movement? Brian will teach a practical session that will introduce a missional approach to engaging both the Church and the World with the message of the Old and New Testaments.

3) Plenary Session: (re)Aligning with God: Reading Scripture for the Church and the World

Here is the full schedule for Catapult

I hope that some of you can join us for this event. Registration remains open.