These are the posts which, by my rough-and-ready calculation (allowing for the fact that some are older than others), have generated the most interest over the last year. It’s not a very meaningful exercise—there must be more exciting ways of ending the year—but, with the exception of number 8 on trinitarian arguments for the subordination of women, they give a good impression of the core purpose of this blog. And what is that core purpose? It is to explore the relationship between the biblical narrative and history and to ask how such a historically grounded narrative may inform the life and mission of the church today.
1. Resolving the tension between wrath and love by means of diagrams: a simplistic but illustrated attempt to show how narrative provides a better solution to the problem of reconciling the wrath and love of God than systematic theology does.
2. How are you to escape being sentenced to hell?: how Matthew 23:33-36 supports my argument that “hell” in the Gospels is what happens when God judges Israel.
3. Israel and the nations: the limits of Old Testament expectation: how the Gentiles fit into the Old Testament missional paradigm.
4. Why I believe in the rapture: slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it makes a serious biblical point.
5. Satan, serpents and the dreadful forces of political change: why we should not try to separate the spiritual from the political in the biblical narrative.
6. The narrative-historical method—an outline: an outline of the narrative-historical method.
7. It is not our job to extend the kingdom: we talk a lot of nonsense sometimes in the name of the kingdom.
8. The begotten Son and the subordinate woman: the debate goes on—I’m off to Portland, Oregon, later in January for conversations on gender equality and sex-same issues with some Christian Associates friends.
9. Is it the mission of the church to be a blessing to people? DeYoung and Gilbert say no: I agree and disagree with these guys about the gospel and missional praxis.
10. The gospel, the story of Israel, and personal salvation: no compromise: Scot McKnight and his Reformed critics, and why I think neither side gets it quite right.
And for good measure, here’s the post that appears to have generated the least interest:
Weiss and Schweitzer on the kingdom of God: right, right, right, wrong, and still wrong: the old guys get a lot of it right, but I don’t think Jesus was talking about the end of the world.
Next week, challenged by Charles and inspired by Phil Legerwood, I will try to make some practical suggestions about preaching the historical narrative. Between now and then, have a happy new year!
I’m glad it was inspiring! I’ve actually been writing a lot in my little notebook about, not just how to communicate these things, but the practical impact for modern Gentiles if the basic thrust of a narrative-historical perspective is on the right track, which I believe it is. I also wrote for a friend a sort of “Spectrum of Acceptance” in response to a question about how much of that perspective could be adopted without adopting all the same conclusions in it.
And for the record, I’ve re-read the Weiss and Schweitzer post several times, but that’s probably because I’m coming from a strong “already but not yet” understanding of kingdom and eschatology and some of those issues are live ones for me.
Recent discussion