quote>>You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don’t see all things subjected to him, yet. end-quote.

I do not see all things subjected to him. The next verse goes on:

quote >>But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for everyone. end-quote.

I read that Jesus tasted death for everybody but I know that my mortal body will still see decay. While in this body I can learn what it means to daily take up my cross and ‘partake’ in Christ’s death while I expect for a yet to come re-creation of all things. Yes, I am a new creation. I have been taught that this is ‘positionally.’ But as a ‘positionally instated new creation, ” I am also entombed in this earthen vessel.

It is my desire to better articulate this as I share my story. How do you reconcile the tension in the inaugurated eschatology (I did a little searching to see what this means)? And if I may ask one more question, how do we best describe ‘the Event of the Cross AND the Resurrection’ to humanity on this side of the cross? (admittedly, the second question may be more than the scope of this thread)…

Until very recently in my faith walk, I was one of those you mention in your book that had primarily seen Sin as a violation of a legal transaction. That context painted my picture of God, and I was not able to adequately articulate, in my thinking, the nature of our separation from a GOOD God. I knew that I “missed the mark”; but the context seemed to be that I had violated one of the Ten Commandments and that is what was bad. The concept of Sin being a relational violation has been introduced to me through recent reading including some of the Wind Blown Media books. I really get now that the Ten Commandments point to relational violations.

I know have a framework that understands that it was our assertion to independence that is the definition of the human problem. Mirrored on earth, we can see examples in our relationships. In my marriage, imagine if I assert my independence with our shared family finances. Sadly, this could lead to eventual separation from the relationship I have with my wife. Money issues lead to Divorce. No! Asserting our own way leads to divorce.

In the same way, our Rebellion, as a declaration of independence, makes room at the re-creation for a Final Divorce from God. Either we have a choice, really, and therefore are responsible–or we simply do not have a choice. As magnificent beings, created with this power of will, we CHOSE to walk our own way. I think Rebellion and the implications of it (judgment) answer the question of Universalism. God is longing for us; we file the divorce papers in the cosmic court. God does desire/will that all would come (will to choose) back into relationship with Him. (This helps me better understand the story of Hosea and all the other references to God’s people divorced from him in the Scriptures).

By the way, I too, am personally committed to understanding Jesus and the Rescue Event. Repeatedly, we see the event of Jesus on the cross as central to the ‘foolishness’ of the Gospel preached by the apostles. I am compelled to share this good story of rescue and the hope it offers us human rebels. May I learn what it means to preach Christ crucified.

I’m not sure that focussing primarily of Jesus’ death implies a later Resurrection. At least in the sense that many “would-be” messiah’s have died – yet never rose in that same sense that Jesus did.

Are these valid arguments to anyone out there? Or am I missing something that those who might disagree with me might like to point out?

Bouma states, “I also am curious why The Story that Rob was encouraging us pastors to tell was missing an explanation of the Event of the Cross, the point at which God objectively dealt with the three objective realities of evil, sin, and death.”

Interesting, yet…
…I must point out that Resurrection (for some of us) deals with evil, sin, and death.

Resurrection IS the defeat of Death.

Resurrection overcomes evil with Jesus’ inauguration of the NEW CREATION at Resurrection.

Resurrection is even the defeat of evil itself because in and through Jesus – New creation has begun.

Thus, even though many might still consider Christ’s death as specifically dealing with SIN in particular, and I’m OK with that perspective, an “inaugurated eschatology” i.e. a new creation motif as in the life of Jesus the Messiah and his followers as “living the new creation now,” actually (even theologically soundly) can present RESURRECTION as the COVERING of your three concerns of EVIL, SIN, & DEATH.

All this is very much where Tom Wright is coming from.

While I have so much appreciation for the presenters this week, I wonder if we only continue to embrace this art form because it is what we know. What if preachers actually embraced the kind of dialogical teaching that Paul did most often in the public square?

Instead, we continue to perpetuate something that keeps people happy with their pastor?
And would people show up at that kind of conference?

Sorry Jeremy. You can convince me otherwise when I return home.

See you tomorrow!

Perhaps you meant “sub-culture.” I resonate with everything you’ve said here, including a frustration with Shane’s broad brush strokes (Pixels, etc.), but I think today’s majority religious culture is more attuned with “linear, exclusive, theological monologue” than “dialogical narrative.” I’m hopeful that our growing subcultures will one day become more normative.

I probably wouldn’t attend a conference where virtual communication devices were “prohibited” so your updates are all the more appreciated.