He spends much ink in the second half of the book outlining what the eschatological/apocalyptic/messianic means in terms of 1st century Judaism and then how Jesus likely understood and redefined. Within this discussion there is much weight put upon the influence of the apocalyptic book of Daniel upon the framework of  Mark 13.

As he reads it to mean, contrary to much contemporary-traditional readings, this passage in Mark is focused on Jesus giving a judgment upon the Temple. It is centered upon the prophetic judgment of the Temple and its system of sacrifice. The way Wright sees it, Jesus’ whole ministry climaxes with his traveling into Jerusalem. His whole ministry has been warning judgment unless they follow the true Israel found in him; it therefore climaxes with his entry into Jerusalem with the symbolic act of turning over the tables in the Temple—representing the coming destruction of the Temple.

All the statements of Mark 13 then point not to some second coming as commonly understood, but rather to Jesus’ prophetic vindication with the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

My trouble with this, is I don’t see the continued train of thought with the early Christian writings (such as Paul). It seems we continue to get eschatological hopes for further vindication through the standard Jewish belief of God’s coming judgment & vindication.

Furthermore I find it difficult to see the powerful vindication found in the judgment of Israel with the destruction of the Temple for Jesus as prophet/messianic figure and for his followers. It seems at the conclusion of the book that that is all Jesus is focused on, he walks the path of the true Israel, knowing it would cause him to go to Jerusalem and die, and his message was that the kingdom of god is here but since you deny it the Temple will be destroyed in judgment…So then what?

I am eager to begin N.T. Wright’s follow up book (vol.3) The Resurrection of the Son of God. I hope that this book can answer this question about vindication, because I understood the vindication of Jesus to be found in his resurrection not in the Temple’s destruction. I am interested to see how he weaves these themes together.

Concluding this historical account of Jesus, has left me with just that, a historical Jesus. I’m left at the end of the book with an image of a prophet, no doubt a truly great even the greatest, but nonetheless a prophet. He speaks of the possibility of a kingdom of god and a coming judgment of god for not receiving it. He embodies himself in the promises of the old prophets, he is transformative healing the sick welcoming the poor and outcast. But after his life after the initial ripples of early Christianity, where are we but in the same place as old Israel in a cycle of 1&2Kings riding from good to bad to good to bad and worse.

I’m left with the feeling that life will be the continual waiting for the return, the never-to-be eschaton.

Sometimes God asks us to give up what is good, even that which he has given us.

N.T. Wright in his book Jesus and the Victory of God describes the central symbols of first-century Judaism which Jesus challenges. One such symbol is possessions (including land as inheritance); Jesus completely subverts this common understanding of God’s blessing.

A Jew of this period saw riches as a blessing from God for their righteous living. The riches and land one possessed were seen as gifts from God, part of the promised inheritance going all the way back to Abraham. To be wealthy was to be Godly, in the eyes of the average Jew. Jesus completely subverts this ideology, saying such things as it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than a camel to enter the eye of a needle. It was assumed by most that the rich would enter heaven, their question was about everyone else. Jesus turns that upside down, saying the poor in spirit, the meek will be guaranteed entrance; it is the rich who need to worry. This turns everything inside out, those who were on the inside are found to be on the outside, those on the outside find themselves on the inside.

But to get back to my original point and where this gets us today. Could it be the case that a good gift given today will not be a good gift for us tomorrow. We can see this easily with the maturation of children. The baby leaves the goodness of the mother’s milk for the goodness of solid food. I don’t think many of us would return to the all liquid diet of infancy after having tasted the goodness of real food.

I’m not sure what this means exactly for me; but Jesus makes it clear that to move forward we must forsake the things of the past, for something better. When Jesus is proclaiming the kingdom come he is describing the ancient promises fulfilled . The problem for the people is it requires giving something up, those things which limit their entry. These things were for some the traditions which were getting in the way of God’s intention. There was a rich landscape of zealots, trying to usher in the kingdom. The trouble for them, such as the Pharisees we see in the gospel accounts, was that they had an idea of who God was and how he was going to act. Jesus comes proclaiming a way of God which was quite contrary to their understanding; instead of forsaking their ideologies they rather chose not to follow Jesus’ path. So sometimes the possession we are holding onto is an ideology and conception of God which limits him to a certain way of acting in the world. Jesus came to destroy all prior conceptions and remake our understanding of who God is and how he works in the world.

So how often to we hold onto the good gifts of yesteryear instead of forsaking all and following Jesus?

This is academic life. To be able to succeed one must delve deep into a narrow range within a already specific field. This specificity allows one to dig deep into the area but also can easily leave one at the bottom of the narrow mine without a clear view of the big picture. While it is clear that in N.T. Wright’s writing he works hard to keep in mind the big picture, it is often a picture limited to a certain time-space, first-century Palestine (or rather a 21c. Anglican Bishop looking at 1c. Palestine).

I shouldn’t blame Wright for this though. His work is commendable, reaching far greater than most of us are able with are finite abilities. I find myself returning to the frustration I’ve had with my own search of occupation—is it better to be really great at one thing or simply good at many. Living in a world of specializations, we value the great skilled scientist, who delves into the secrets of the cosmos, but who can’t change the tire on the hybrid car they helped invent. On the other hand at least in the U.S. we also value the cowboy, the independent man who can do most things on his own. Which is better, to go deep or to go wide?

I have worked hard and intentionally as to be all things to all people, as Paul would say himself. It is difficult and uncomfortable, but I believe it is necessary work for the kingdom. We must be able to work and dialogue with others across the fence, across disciplines, across political parties and denominations. We must find our home in the specificity of our situatedness but we willing and able to leave home to be welcomed into another’s home. I see children being exceptionally good at this. While a child can quickly realize the differences which separate them from an other, they can quickly move past to the {more important} realization of our sameness. While post-modern thought wants me to say that the other is wholly other, I have to disagree. There is much sameness in our humanity which crosses cultures. As children it is play. As students it is school. As adults work. As Parents it is our children. Etc. There is always something which can unite us, even those from widely distant culture. Much of Jesus’ and Paul’s ministry was done in places far from home, they left their arenas of comfort and sought the other where they were to be found. Neither setup an office and waited for people to show up. In the texts we have, we always find them out traveling, running into people along the way.

Bringing this back to to the theological world, I am saddened that the same divisive character that we find in the rest of the world is strongly entrenched within the Church also. It seems very often we define ourselves not by our unifying belief of the power of Easter but rather we define ourselves by our internal differences within the body of Christ, rather than expressing our radical story which is opposed to the Babylon without. Put plainly, don’t we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about denominational squabbles? Don’t we have so much to learn from each other?

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

The contemporary connotations abound rather negatively towards this word repent. It carries heavy {dark} religious overtones for us today. We have easily lost the context of which this word was used because of contemporary {mis}uses of the term.

N.T. Wright frames the first-century context very well. Instead of drawing to mind images of these likes, it is rather about return as seen in the prodigal son. In this parable, N.T. Wright believes, is the best description Jesus gives us of what he means by repent.

The prodigal son doesn’t focus on his ‘sin’ as such in that moment of repentance, rather he is focused on his bad condition and the distance from his father. He thinks, if only I could get back, things would be better, even if only as a servant. The scene as the father welcomes him, shows the restoration that occurs with repentance. The father has been waiting this whole time for the son to return, and when he does he celebrates. In even more dramatic fashion the lost sheep, has the shepherd not waiting for the return but goes even further to find the lost one.

He spends much ink to show how Jesus’ call for repentance was in line with the traditions of the prophets calling for a turning towards YHWH. What we see with Jesus is him calling for a return to Israel’s god. He is heralding in god’s kingdom and for the people to be included they must align themselves with the king, through repenting.

This repenting was a call for the community as much as it was for the individual. The nation was being called to return to its first love. Too often today we have lost this communal sense, in our individualistic western culture we struggle to even understand how this could be the case. Read any of the prophets, repentance can always be found on the level of nations.

With Jesus as with the prophets of old, there is an implicit and even explicit connection between repentance and restoration of the nation—a return from exile, as N.T. Wright is so keen on highlighting. What does this mean? This act of repentance is a once for all act, not simply the cyclical repentance which the Temple offered annually. Rather this call for repentance was a call to usher in the eschatological end of days, the restoration of the people, the vindication of god and his people.

What is also important is that John the Baptist’s & Jesus’ calls for repentance don’t involve the Temple process or its authority. This call for repentance is outside of the normal power structures of Judaism. Jesus message of repentance is subversive because he proclaims to do it with his own authority, a restoration of Israel independent of the Temple power structure. He does this by his own authority and through his own process.

The call of Jesus is actually much more radical than simply a moral repentance; his call is completely world altering. It defies the religious, political, economic structures, even so far as the basic family structure. What is beautiful about Jesus is he goes further with his message than even the average radical street corner proselytizer is willing to go; Jesus goes all the way down to destroying your whole world view, not just your moral code.

He isn’t a crack pot theologian.

He puts forth a sound argument from sound and reasonable premises. He calls himself & his methodology ‘critical realism’; in that there are real objects in the world to be found, even of history, though they are mediated through a conversation of subject/object. We must therefore be critical of the knowledge we acquire but nevertheless we are able to get at some real beyond ourselves. It is a middle ground approach to the two ditches of pure subjectivism on one hand or pure objectivism on the other.

This approach is refreshing. He claims openly that he isn’t trying to create something new but is comfortable being very close to traditional orthodoxy. He isn’t trying to be progressive for its own sake or dogmatic for the sake of refusing change; rather he describes it as answering the questions of today with the wisdom of the 1-2 cen. early church.

I have grown tired of so many contemporary writers who claim to have discovered something new to the Christian faith, something lost or forgotten. It seems that more of us should stop trying to be sensational and be comfortable with the old, stewarding it for our & future generations.

Secondly I appreciate his focus on setting a clear understanding of worldview in his work. His understanding that thoughts and actions do not happen in a vacuum or a bubble what rather are mixed up with other parts of one’s life and also the life of the community.

These thoughts on worldview have been insightful to me in talking with people of disimilar outlook. I am beginning to see that discussions of disagreement are a result of underlying beliefs structures more often than simply A vs. B decision making. A is chosen over B because of a mountain of other decisions which it implicitly acknowledges within a certain worldview framework.

This reminds me of Rob Bell’s phrase of ‘the thing behind the thing’. Bell is speaking something very similar, things are rarely living on the surface; we have to dive down under the surface to under why the thing ticks the way it ticks.

Another great source of N.T. Wright of late has been his recent lectures at Wheaton College. The lectures included some reading of critical papers dealing with various aspects of Wright’s work. It was really illuminating to hear others dealing with his work in a rigorous and academic manner. I would highly recommend listening to the whole of the conference. Thanks to Wheaton for freely distributing those freely online & through iTunes.

It has been interesting looking at how these contemporary artists are dealing with the current state of art. In the last hundred years, art has attempted to push the boundaries of ‘what art is’, reaching the limits in the absurd & banale. I have a deep love & respect for art and the power which it has. That being said, I often wonder {especially married to an artist} where art is going, what power it still has in a world which has seemed to try to put the work of art into the personal experience much like religion has been regulated to personal spirituality.

I say all this as introduction to an observation about contemporary art. Through the handful of episodes we have watched, I don’t think one artist was portrayed who didn’t include installation work as part of their emphasis. I find this very interesting, as one artist very rightly described her work as drawing the viewer in, submersing them in the experience of the work, instead of simply letting them view it from afar.

I think this exactly what is needed to bring visual arts back towards the center of culture. The installation forces people to come together to experience it, one can not privately view the installation. The public-ness of the experience I think is wonderful in that it forces the patron out of the privatized experience and into a communal one, even with the multitude of interpretations.

With the advent of much of the technology associated with entertainment, the viewing of art—be it visual arts, or performance arts, music, or anything else—has become a private spectating thing rather than a communal participatory experience. Before the wide availability of musical recording & playback, one had to gather one’s local musicians to hear music. Before Hollywood, one had to go to the theatre to see acting; now a days we can simply go to our tv, computers, or even our phones for our private experience.

With the desire for community slowly creeping back into the desires of people, we are beginning to recreate the institutions which have transformed along with everything else in the last few centuries. We are rethinking what these institutions are purposely for and what they can do for us.

We see these sames ideas & desires being played out in the institution which is the church. Peter Rollins has famously created these installation type experiences with Ikon, that are very far from the traditional church experience. [There is a recent article in the Guardian about this change with church communities.]

If we think about the church world in large scale then we can see certain similarities with that of the arts > modern entertainment. Instead of local sages local teaching local forms of worship, we have exported its production to larger entities. We look to the CCM top 40 to get our latest worship song, instead of expecting original local community crafted material. Instead of having local teachers who do the hard work of crafting material, we instead buy a slick DVD of the latest guru to hit the Christianity Today cover. Instead of relying on the wisdom on the those within community, we purchase it from either a professional by the hour or the self-help rack at the ‘local’ chain bookstore.

We deny the locality of our lives; we think we can simply export whatever is ‘cool’ over there, box it up in slick packaging, & transport it to our native environment. We can experience the same worship as them by just playing their songs, reading their books. Through this process, the individual & also the community as a whole loses its sense of self-expression. The community is then relegated to reproduction rather than an original creational birth of expression.

What I like about the installation, is that it is unique to the locality, be it temporary or permanent the installation is unique to its location. Would the Statue of Liberty or the Arch of St. Louis mean anything if every large metropolitan had one? What is wonderful about what Ikon does is that it is unique, never repeated, yet communally experienced.

I have been thinking about church a lot lately, I’m torn between wanting it to mean much more than it does but also much less. I’m torn between respecting & desiring a liturgically ordered service, where  holiness is found in the repetition; but also finding myself being bored with the sameness of schedule. I am confused about my desires of wanting to meet less often for formal services but also equally desiring more formal events.

So I wonder, is church more like a canvas on the wall which you can purchase & take home with you; or is more like an installation which is fixed to a certain time-space. With either, the permanence of the piece causes it to be disappear. Only the tourist notices the permanent installation. For the local it has long disappeared into the background of the landscape, maybe never to have been seen in the first place.

I wonder how does one construct a church, a fellowship of believers, as to make it a submersing experience while not causing it to become so familiar as to disappear, while creating enough regularity & sameness that it becomes integrated into a holistic faith & way of living.

In Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy, while examining Nietzsche he explores the contrast of Nietzsche’s superman centered state to that of the liberal democracy. Nietzsche holds that man is not equal, there are a select who are better and should be given a freedom to exercise their greatness, even at the expense of the majority. We shouldn’t care for the life or death of the ‘weak’ class, they are only meant as support for the exploits of the ruling supermen. This is because it is only on the backs of the great leader that history moves forward. He feels that it is only by the efforts of Napoleon that the 19th century is shaped, never mind the wake of destruction he felt in his wake.

The liberal sees all men created equal and should be treated as such. His efforts are for moving society towards equality, freedom being giving not only to an elect but to all. The central goal is not the exploits of a great leader but rather the happiness of all. Liberals want everyone to be happy; Nietzsche doesn’t shy away from struggle and anguish if it is in the name of greatness. Nietzsche sees liberality as creating equality through a lowest common denominator. Nietzsche wants to create a system that allows the freedom for the greatest to be great, even if it is as a result of injustice towards the masses.

The question between these two systems seems to come up on the personal level also. It seems that even in a democratic society for one man to excel greatly it is done on the labour and exploitation of another. What business has risen to significant power without questionable if not out right unethical practices? It seems to be great means robbing from another.

Although there is the complication that it is through these great riches that we have some many of the great edifices of culture. The great pyramids of Egypt or the wonderful cathedrals of Europe couldn’t have been made without the exploitive measures of the powerful from the weak. As Christians we look negatively upon Pharaoh for enslaving the Israelites, but it was through exactly that kind of slavery that the pyramids were built. As Protestants we chide the Catholics for selling indulgences, but it was through that commerces that the Church became rich enough to commission its great works.

The same can be said of Rockefeller a century ago or the Gates of today. Is it better to amass such wealth and power so as to do such large scale constructs?

But what kind of person does it take to be a Rockefeller or a Napoleon? I take it that while you might want these men as acquaintances owing a favor to you, they wouldn’t make good friends. What great man of history is also a great husband or father? It seems that to have success in the area of one’s profession a grave sacrifice has to be made of those who are closest to you, one’s family & friends. Not to mention the certain paranoia that usually accompanies men of power, where when they can they off any other contenders of greatness.

On one level we can say it is a choice, one is not better than the other. One can have professional success or have a rich contented personal life; though many try to have both it seems in the end one has to make a choice. On another level it seems we must make a value judgment, one choice must be right while the other wrong.

This causes me to think about the Kingdom of God, how Jesus showed another way than the way of the world.

I have swung back and forth between the two. When explicitly spelled out, in terms of Christian morality/ethics, it seems that the family man is the right course of action. When you look at the ‘great’ men throughout history they are usually horrible people on the personal level, only through their exploits are they appreciated. Looking at the Christ’s example we can see that he implicitly states that ends don’t justify means. The for the Israelites was a establishment of the Davidic throne. It had been promised, and Jesus came pronouncing the Kingdom of God. Justifiably the people were expecting a revolution, violent and brutal it must be. Jesus through his acts of servanthood (i.e., washing the feet of the disciples) and ultimately laying down his life for the other he shows that the process is just as important as the result.

But was also Jesus who left it all after thirty years of life and lived nomadic for 3 years before being killed. He is the person who said that following him meant leaving one’s family, living everything. So his life while not one of the despotic ruler is still not the banale life of the ‘burbs.

It seems I’ve so often falsely composed this as a dichotomy between the content family man (read boring suburbia life) and the mow everyone else down Nietzschian superman. There is a third way, the way of Jesus which is just a radical but also just as extolling of people & the events of life.

I’m not really sure where to begin, my frustrations over this loom so wide. Let me begin this way. Should not our First Amendment rights to free speech protect us from our employers?

It seems things have gotten to a certain surreal ridiculousness. Point 1, when did we get to the point where we expect perfection of speech from anyone & everyone, especially those in power, leadership, or just simply stardom? No one is allowed the mishap of a Freudian slip, after one too many at the dinner party, without it becoming frontpage news in the morning post. So often these ‘incidents’ become so over blown that they end up causing the said person to lose their job.

Where is the grace. Where is the mercy.

To those who consider this a ‘Christian nation’ I would like to see leading the reins on this one.

Can’t we just allow that people will screw up. Can’t we admit that even today in our ‘progressive’ 21st century world we all still have deep seated prejudices and they will come out on occasion.

Point 2, when did it become impossible for anyone of the above said stature to have wild statements. Why can not the senior editor of Middle Eastern affairs for CNN say something as {wildly benign} as: “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah … One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.”

Oh no, one of us Americans is considering the humanity of one of….them!!!

Come on Americans, we will never get any closer to ending our long struggles in the Middle East if this is the way we will continue to react. We must slow down in our reaction and stop & consider Fadlallah as a person, the same as you and me.

I always wanted to believe that CNN was different than the other network news station, but this only proves that they are simply a tool like the rest.

Octavia Nasr, I’m sorry; they don’t speak for me and my family, we respect your respect of the other.