1 / 23

Pauline Interpretation of Christianity: ROMANS

Pauline Interpretation of Christianity: ROMANS. Tuesday, April 12, 2011. Today’s Schedule. Lecture: Love and Endebtedness JULIE CARLI Respondent : Murielle Wyman  MADELEINE ST. MARIE Respondent : Jason Jones. NEXT WEEK CH. 14-15 . AMY LENTZ (ch. 14)

maximilian
Télécharger la présentation

Pauline Interpretation of Christianity: ROMANS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Pauline Interpretation of Christianity:ROMANS Tuesday, April 12, 2011

  2. Today’s Schedule • Lecture: Love and Endebtedness • JULIE CARLI Respondent: Murielle Wyman •  MADELEINE ST. MARIE Respondent: Jason Jones

  3. NEXT WEEK CH. 14-15 • AMY LENTZ (ch. 14) • Respondent: Steve Staggs • IRIS ANKROM(ch. 15) • Respondent: Julianne Snape

  4. Part # 3Choosing one of the two Interpretations: The Better Teaching • Which is the best in the life-context discussed in Part # 1 of the two interpretations presented in Part # 2? • Part # 2 = shows that the two interpretations are • “legitimate” (each is supported by a scholar) and • “plausible” (their presentations and understandings of the themes make sense) • So we have a choice • Indeed, each presupposes a contextual choice: problem, root-problem & thus role of scripture

  5. Romans 13Exercise: F/T? NC/P? A/M? • Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

  6. Romans 13Exercise: F/T? NC/P? A/M? • 6For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them-- taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. 8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet"; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers;

  7. Choosing an interpretation consistent with Loving Neighbors and Loving God • loving neighbors: • Positively: What needs of our neighbors does it effectively and successfully address or fail to address in the specific context you re considering? • Negatively: What problematic effects does it have (or could potentially have) in a specific context for our neighbors? • Positively: Who benefits from this interpretation? • Negatively: Who is hurt (or neglected) by this interpretation? • loving God: Each of the two interpretations posits • a different role of this text as Scripture for Christian believers(with whom you identify yourself or whom you imagine [and with whom you might disagree, especially, regarding the interpretation that you reject]): • A different role of Christian convictions and values in your choice of one interpretation as better than the other for this context?

  8. Loving: ForensicAutonomous Centered • Love = being ready to give and giving to others what they lack (compassion; charity), even if it means depriving oneself of what we give (self-sacrifice) • Agape vs. Eros (Anders Nygren) • Agape = self-giving and unmotivated divine love revealed in Jesus Christ … which we should imitate • Romans 12:1 I appeal to you [exhort you], by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, = self-sacrifice 13:8 owing = indebted TO GOD to love others • Philippians 2:5-8 Let the same mind be in you that was in • Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God… , 7 emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, 8 he humbled himself to the point of death– • Vs. Eros as self-serving love, consuming the loved one: I love ice-cream; a candy

  9. Loving: New Covenant/PastoralRelational Centered • Love = reciprocal giving and receiving; • reciprocal relationship in the people of God, in the body of Christ with members with different gifts = Loving relationship = indebtedness TO GOD to love others • Inclusion of Gentiles together withJews in God’s plan • Rom 12:3-6 [Do] not think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, … 4 For as in one body we have many members, and not all the members have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. 6 We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: • 12:9-10 Let love be genuine; … 10 love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. • Romans 1:11-12 For I am longing to see you so that I may share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you-- 12 or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.

  10. Loving: Apocalyptic/MessianicHeteronomous Centered • Love = recognizing others as better than ourselves, being indebted to them, recognizing them as Christ for us and then responding to them as indebted to the other (=being in love; LOVE BEGINS BY FALLING IN LOVE!) • Romans 13:8-10 Oweovfei,lete no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; … and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. • Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." • Note: not in a twofold commandment about love of God and love of neighbor

  11. Loving: Apocalyptic/Messianic • Love = recognizing others as better than ourselves, being indebted to them, recognizing them as Christ for us and then responding to them as indebted to the other (=being in love) • Philippians 2:4-7 Let each of you look not to your own gifts, but to the gifts of others. 5 Have the same attitude among you as you have toward Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. • =, Recognize Christ-like people among those who are humble, oppressed, rejected

  12. Choosing an interpretation consistent with Loving Neighbors and Loving God • loving neighbors: • Positively: What needs of our neighbors does it effectively and successfully address or fail to address in the specific context you re considering? • Negatively: What problematic effects does it have (or could potentially have) in a specific context for our neighbors? The disaster of a WRONG DIAGNOSIS and thus not actually addressing the problem • Positively: Who benefits from this interpretation? • Negatively: Who is hurt (or neglected) by this interpretation?

  13. Love = giving to others as potentially problematic • Love = giving to others what they lack (compassion; charity), (Forensic) • even if it means depriving oneself of what we give (self-sacrifice) --- problematic teaching for people who are oppressed. Feminist critique. • problematic effect on those who are helped: being viewed as inferior, as subaltern, as “have-not” by contrast with the “have-givers” • = the powerful further brings down the “needy” • Often, the giver decides what the have-not truly needs. • Danger: Giver/loving one = posits him/herself as superior • As loving God = acknowledging God as superior who gives God-self for us as sinners = people who have a problem, a lack.

  14. Loving: New Covenant/PastoralBenefits and Dangers • Love = reciprocal giving and receiving; • reciprocal relationship in the people of God, in the body of Christ with members with different gifts = Loving relationship • the inclusion of Gentiles together with the Jews in God’s plan • The gifts I have are for others (not for me) • Danger: denying the mutuality; not recognizing that I need the gifts that others have received and that I do not have = affirmation of others and their gifts …

  15. Loving: Apocalyptic/Messianic • Love = recognizing others as better than ourselves, being indebted to them, recognizing them as Christ for us and then responding to them as indebted to the other (=being in love) • Loving begins by receiving: recognizing that I receive (received) something from others; • Demands contemplation (corrective lenses) • Loving neighbor = recognizing them as Christ for us = loving God (no need of two commandments!) • Then, responding with thankfulness… giving oneself to others. = genuine love • Danger: 1) failing to see we have received or are receiving something from others • 2) Being abused & reinforcing oppressions… the weak, the oppressed viewing others as better than selves … and NOT BEING RECOGNIZED AS BETTER THAN SELF BY OTHER

  16. Homosexuality: ForensicWeb: Romans 1:26-27 and Scriptural Criticism" • Rom 1:26-27: Forensic Reading: this passage is a moral teaching for Christian believers who are tempted to be homosexuals. Root-problem: will or knowledge • 1:26-27 = paraenetic literature. like the Book of Proverbs = “You shall not commit homoerotic acts” (so as to escape the judgment, 1:18) • Loving gays and lesbians = bringing them what they lack: = a knowledge of God’s will, so that they can change their behavior; • Excluding them from community, for the sake of the rest of the community. (= Reading # 3, a variant)

  17. Homosexuality: CovenantalWeb: Romans 1:26-27 and Scriptural Criticism" • Rom 1:26-27: Covenantal. teaches heterosexuals who condemn homosexuals: Homoeroticism is a sin among others; hate the sin, but love the sinners, as God loves them. • Homosexuals are like any other sinners, and thus, should not be singled out as “them”! Root-problem: ideology (community) • homosexuals who struggle with God’s grace to overcome their homosexual inclination (as other people struggle to overcome their own sins), even though, like everybody else, again and again they need forgiveness, because they failed in their struggle against sin. • All of us, Christian believers, and members of the community of faith, are “recovering sinners” by God’s grace and through faith, whatever might be our sin. • Rom 1:26-27 (together with the rest of the letter, and 2:1) brings to homosexuals the good news of God’s unconditional love for them. • Loving Don’t ask don’t tell; recognizing that church includes a diversity of sinners, all called to contribute to the church’s vocation

  18. Homosexuality: ApocalypticWeb: Scriptural Criticism of Romans 1:26-27 • Rom 1:26-27: My Own Apocalyptic Reading: this passage teaches Christian believers both • to denounce destructive passion-filled homosexuality as idolatrous • Applies also to destructive passion-filled heterosexuality • to discern and affirm what is “good and acceptable and perfect” in homosexual relations (Rom 12:2) Root-problem: wrong faith/idolatry • Life in idolatry is portrayed as shameful (avtima,zesqai). It is a life under the destructive and deadly power of one’s idols, and as such it is a manifestation of God’s wrath that the gospel reveals (Rom 1:18, with 1:16-17). • Because a good gift from God has been absolutized: • (good, constructive, loving homosexual relationships as well as hetero sexual) • Homophobia (rejections of gays and lesbians as sinners) = doing the very thing you hate (Rom 2:1; 7:15-20) = an idolatry • Absolutization of heterosexual relations • Loving gays and lesbians for an heterosexual = recognizing the good gifts that one needs to receive from gays and lesbians

  19. Sexuality: Apocalyptic • Rom 1:26-27 as part of 1:18-2:1: My Own Apocalyptic Reading: this passage teaches Christian believers both • to denounce destructive passion-filled sexuality as idolatrous • Applies to destructive passion-filled homosexuality and heterosexuality • to discern and affirm what is “good and acceptable and perfect” in sexual relations (Rom 12:2) = sexuality is a good gift from God • But when a good gift from God is absolutized : • Sexuality including sexual desire as good, constructive, loving relationships • Then it becomes destructive, oppressive.

  20. JULIE CARLI Ch. 13: Loving and Sexuality • FormalRespondent: Murielle Wyman • Respondents: • Arden Henderson • Derek Axelson • Ross Stackhouse • Julianne Snape • KarneyCarney

  21. Respondents • a) Is your leader’s interpretation consistent? • b) What would be the teaching of Rom 13 for your context? How would this change the choice of most significant “theme”? role of Scripture? most significant features (verses) of the text? • c) conversely, how would the understanding of YOUR CONTEXT (PROBLEM and ROOT-PROBLEM) change from the perspective of the interpretation favored by Julie or Madeleine? 

  22. MADELEINE ST. MARIE Rom 13 and Resisting authorities • Formal Respondent: Jason Jones • Respondents: • Steve Staggs • Amy Lentz • Jonathan Baynham • Iris Ankrom • Jeremy Snow

  23. Respondents • a) Is your leader’s interpretation consistent? • b) What would be the teaching of Rom 13 for your context? How would this change the choice of most significant “theme”? role of Scripture? most significant features (verses) of the text? • c) conversely, how would the understanding of YOUR CONTEXT (PROBLEM and ROOT-PROBLEM) change from the perspective of the interpretation favored by Julie or Madeleine? 

More Related