I'm Moving!

I'm moving!

To a new website, that is. After a couple fruitful years using the Blogger platform, I feel it's time to "upgrade" to something a little more flexible and with more growth potential. So come check me out over at www.justindametz.com - it's pretty snazzy!

This blog isn't going anywhere, if anyone wants to read the old stuff. I have exported a portion of these posts over to the new page, including the entire #30daysofPaul series, but everything here is staying put.

So please, come join us! And don't forgot to find me on Facebook, and like and share with your friends!

10 Books That Have Shaped My Thinking

I was challenged this last fall by a cherished mentor of mine on Facebook to list ten books that have had an exceptional impact on me and my thinking. I posted the list on Facebook, but I figured I should share it here as well. The idea here is identifying ten books that have really impacted me and brought me to where I am today intellectually. Being the intense book nut that I am, I jumped at the chance to go through my bookshelf and think about what I've been reading over the last few years.

These ten books are in no particular order, and are subject to change as soon as I finish future books. Here we go.

1. "Truman" by David McCullough: I'm nuts for presidential biographies, and this is the one that cemented Harry Truman as my favorite president. McCullough really highlights the Midwest attitude and personality of Truman and how that shaped his exceptionally virtuous and public life, including the many difficult decisions he had to make in office. Truman is undoubtedly the most "regular guy" and relatable president we had in the 20th century, and it shines forth in this great book. A must read for Presidential history buffs like myself.

2. "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer: I read this book right after I started the
political science program at OCU and began becoming more politically aware. It is a detailed and engrossing account of the Bush Administration's war on terror, and specifically how they decided to pursue and treat those they identified as terrorists. The passages describing torture and those within the administration who pushed back against the immoral actions are particularly harrowing. This book really is the one that woke me up to the real-world consequences and nature of politics.

3. "Jesus for President" by Shane Claiborne: This book totally blew my mind. I
read it about three years, as I slowly began my journey into a more theologically-tinged political awareness. Shane asks the really hard questions, and makes really tough points about patriotism, American exceptionalism and Christianity, points that would never be tolerated from a political candidate, or a preacher in many churches, but which are nevertheless true. In the end, the book explores how to really, really follow Jesus while being politically aware and involved.

4. "Saving Jesus from the Church" by Dr. Robin Rex Meyers: another book that blew my mind as I matured theologically. The way I approach my relationship to Jesus and what I expect the church to be is deeply indebted to this book. I learned a lot, and also developed a lot of questions that caused me dig even deeper, as a result of reading this book.

5. "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" by Noam Chomsky:  Along with "The Dark Side", this is a book that really woke me up to the real world consequences and effects of American foreign policy. Chomsky still has, and always will have, a strong effect on my thinking. Passages of this book were required reading for a Political Philosophy course I took at OCU.

6. "Love Wins" by Rob Bell: My wife Arianna read this book aloud to me as we drove to Las Vegas last summer. I was at a point in my faith where I was really struggling with the idea of a loving, merciful God who would send people to Hell to suffer eternally. Rob lays out a great argument in this book about why this idea of a "punishing hell" is in no way Biblical and how we should view our faith in a way that keeps us accountable to God without eternal punishment. For further reading on this subject, Benjamin L. Corey has been much help on his blog.

7. "Rubicon" by Tom Holland: I'm slightly obsessed with Roman history, and especially the era around Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, and Augustus. I love learning about the fall of the Republic, the rise of the Empire and most of all, the fascinating personalities who powered the biggest political shake-up in classical history. Tom's book is a great place to start that learning. Colleen McCullough's "Masters of Rome" series (which I'm currently re-reading) is another great source.

8. "A Black Theology of Liberation" by Dr. James Cone: I actually just finished this book recently. If there is any one book that has both challenged me and infuriated me and educated me all at the same time, this is the one. (Arianna can confirm that series of reactions.) I certainly don't agree with everything Dr. Cone says, but I definitely sympathize with his arguments, and I found my own thinking continually challenged and changed as a result of reading this, especially in light of current events around race and authority in the United States. I love anything Liberation Theology, and along with Gustavo Gutierrez and Oscar Romero and Howard Thurman, James Cone will always been prominently placed on my bookshelf as a minister.

9. "Social Principles of the United Methodist Church" No, I'm serious. Don't laugh, this counts as a book. At a time when I was feeling that there was no church that addressed the issues important to me in a way that embodied justice and mercy, the Social Principles knocked me onto a collision course with ministry. I was so relieved to find a church that not only held these things important, but also took the time every four years to think about and discuss and debate and pray and write them down. As long as we have our Social Principles, and we work hard to live them, I will always be a United Methodist.

10. "The Hobbit" by J.R.R. Tolkien: The only piece of fiction on my list. I first read it in the 5th grade. Our library at Benton Grade School had a large, hard-bound copy with big, painted illustrations by Michael Hague that I must have checked out most of the year and read over and over. From hence came my love of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, and all the other fantasy books I reread over and over and over again.






That's my list. Share yours below!

Romans 16: Gender Equality and Paul #30daysofPaul

Well, we've made it to the end.

30 days of Paul turned into something more like 41 days of Paul, thanks to illness and work and birthdays and just life in general.

But this is it. The last piece.

I've learned a lot about Paul and his writings over the course of this series. I've found him to be funny, intelligent, moving; his personality really shows through in his letters. I've also been able to dispel myths about him that I had before, and that I think a lot of progressive Christians carry around.

In wrapping up, I want to address one of those misconceptions one more time. This is the big one, the one that really trips folks up when they read the Apostle: Paul's views on women.

Now, Romans 16 is, I think, a really good place to tackle this subject. This chapter is really just the postscript and signature line for a long, important letter. He greets a bunch of people, sends some greetings from his compatriots, and signs off. But look more closely at those greetings.

27 names are listed.

10 of those names,

 are the names of women.

The stereotype of Paul is that he held a decidedly anti-woman view of the world, and of how the church should be organized. This is based on several verses from his letters, or letters attributed to him. The most commonly cited are 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

Now those last three verses cited, from Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy, are relatively easy to dismiss from this argument, because if you haven't noticed, they aren't included in this study and thus are not considered to be authentic writings of Paul. So they are not indicative of his views on the sbject.

The 1 Corinthians verse is a little trickier. That letter was most assuredly written by Paul. But many Biblical scholars no longer think those verses, and a whole raft of others in the letter, were actually written by Paul.

I didn't touch on this much when were going through 1 Corinthians, but this scholarly consensus on this stuff is almost unanimous. And for 14:34-35, the view is that this was inserted by a later editor to advance an agenda that prioritized the leadership of men in early churches. This assumption is made because these two verses break up a flow of commands about keeping order and peace within the church, related most likely to the subject we tackled yesterday, Paul's desire for the church to not stir the waters too much in light of the imminent return of Jesus.

So, we've determined that the texts justifying Paul's exclusion of women are no such thing. How do we get from there to seeing Paul not just as a typical mysoginistic first century male, to a radical believer in gender equality?

Back to those 27 names in Romans 16.

Like I said, 10 are women.
Prisca (or Priscilla).
Mary.
Junia.
Tryphaena.
Tryphosa.
Persis.
The mother of Rufus.
Julia.
The sister of Nereus.
Phoebe.

All are prominent enough to get called out by name.

Some get special attention.

Prisca is a well-known associate of Paul, along with her husband Aquila, and is said to work with Paul.

Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis also get a shout-out for their work. In fact, the Greek word used here for work, "kopaio", is a word Paul uses to describe himself in Galatians and Corinthians, and indicates specifically apostolic work.

Junia is noted for being "prominent among the apostles."

And finally, Phoebe is called "a deacon of the church at Cenchreae" and a "benefactor" of Paul's, indicating she was a patron of sorts to him. It is Phoebe who is entrusted to deliver this letter for Paul to Rome.

I think in light of Romans 16, it is hard to paint Paul as someone who doesn't value women, or doesn't see a place for them in active church leadership. Paul saw women as key actors in the early Christian movement, and was never afraid to associate with them, commission them or place them in leadership.;

This really helps highlight what I feel is the key takeaway from this study. Throughout these seven letters, the impression I have gotten of Paul is of a universalist, a radical, an egalitarian. Paul sees all people as equal in the eyes of God. He wants all people brought into the church, to be made whole in the ever present love of God. Paul didn't care if you were "Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

What a great summary of Paul the Apostle.

Next: There is no next! This is it. Thanks for sticking with me through this study; it's been a lot of fun and very informative. I have some exciting plans for the next few months going forward here on the blog, which I will lay out in more detail in the next couple of days, so keep checking in to see what's in store!

For a PDF of the 30 Days of Paul reading plan, click here.

For more info on 30 Days of Paul, click here for my intro, or here for Cassandra Farrin's explanation.

Click Here for Cassandra Farrin's take on today's reading.

Romans 13-15: Dangerous Misreadings of Paul #30daysofPaul

Ah, Romans 13. One of the most-misused and misunderstood sections of the Bible. Also, historically speaking, probably one of the most damaging.

For two thousand years, every power-tripping tyrant has justified his authority by invoking the Apostle here, quieting the protesting masses by simply pointing out that he was appointed by God, because Paul said so, very explicitly.

Very often, the Church has backed up such claims and reasoning's.

In modern usage, it is more often used as a clobber verse against those who don't like whatever government is in power, telling them that they better get in line, because God said so.

In their combined work "The First Paul," (which I just started reading and now wish I would have started before this study) John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg call Romans 13 "one of the most imprudent passages in all of Paul's letters. Looking back on how it has been used throughout Christian history, Paul might surely wish he had never written it."

Can I sign on to that sentiment?

But there has to be some utility here, right? There has to be something constructive we can use in today's world of democracy and dissent, something that isn't along the lines of "you'll take it and you'll like it. Or else."

Let's put things in context here, both Biblical and historicals.

First, imagine the Bible didn't have the chapter and verse divisions. This makes us look at it like it was written, as one part of an unbroken letter. Romans 13 falls in amongst a whole string of instructions for the church at Rome. Remember how chapter 12 ended?

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

So, in light of that, verse 13:1 - "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" - seems to make sense as the next in a line of instructions.

And then, it seems, Paul feels the need to expound upon this thought. That makes sense; this verse by itself would seem confusing to the early church, who was dealing daily with a governing authority who wanted to put them to death. Why in the world should they submit?

So, Paul explains, if you live right and keep quiet and stay out of sight, you shouldn't have much problem. And then he tells them, pay your taxes. Don't refuse to do something as simple as that.

I think this gets at the heart of Paul's intentions. The church at Rome, the individuals who made it up, probably felt like sending a portion of their hard-earned and meager earnings back to Caesar was not only a terrible hardship on them and the church they supported, but probably unnecessary, as they believed Jesus was coming back soon. They may have even felt like violent resistance would be a smart tactic!

And so, Paul invokes the imminent return of Jesus in verses 11-14 to make the exact opposite point the Romans were making. Instead of refusing to pay taxes because of Jesus' coming return, they should instead pay their taxes, because at his return, that money would be of no use anyway!

So, in this total light, this all makes sense. Nothing overly objectionable here; Paul, in a bit of a rhetorical panic, may have overstated this case he was trying to make here, but he was concerned with keeping the church and Christians in Rome safe. So we can forgive him.

Another reason to forgive: Paul probably didn't have any inkling that his words would be passed down for 2,000 or more years and read in a way that misconstrues them as the Directly-Dictated Word of God Never To Be Disputed Or Questioned. Remember, this was a letter written to the church at Rome. He had the reasonable expectation that it would be shared among Christians in Rome, and possibly beyond into Italy, during his lifetime. He may have even expected it to be circulated in some circles after his death by his churches to stake his claim.

But 2000 years of infallibility? I'm sure he never expected such a thing.

Paul had, as I've described before, an overwhelming Eschatology of Immanence. I mean, he thought Jesus was coming back to judge within his and his follower's lives. All instructions he gave must be read in this light.

Paul didn't want his churches trying to overthrow the Roman government. In fact, he didn't even want them drawing undue attention to themselves. Go with the flow, he said, because Jesus is coming soon, and really, none of this matters at that point.

Now, Paul was wrong about the imminent return. And Christians for 2000 years have been wrong to forget this context. It is crucial to reading and understanding Paul.

Paul wasn't justifying corrupt, tyrannical, unjust worldly governments. Paul was concerned with mercy and love and justice and a universal church of equality. None of that would lead him to prop up any worldly government, much less an unjust one. Paul I think would have been quite on board with attempts to defy and overthrow them, if he had lived for two millennium and shed his eschatology.

But he didn't. 

And we need to remember that. 

And we owe it to him to do so.

Next: Romans 16

For a PDF of the 30 Days of Paul reading plan, click here.

For more info on 30 Days of Paul, click here for my intro, or here for Cassandra Farrin's explanation.

Click Here for Cassandra Farrin's take on today's reading.

Romans 10-12: Gentiles and Jews #30daysofPaul

Let's talk about the early church.

I mean, the really early church.

What did this community that we are a part of today, look like in the years immediately following the death of it's founder? What was the source of all the strife among Jews and Gentiles? Why is it such a big deal that Paul was founding churches in Asia Minor, Greece and Europe?

And why do we care?

Let's answer that last question first.

We care because the story of God is the story of barriers breaking down.

It is a story of God breaking the barrier between heaven and earth by coming into personal relationship with God's people. It is a story of the definition of "God's people" expanding exponentially. It is a story of God standing in solidarity with creation in the suffering all mortal beings life with everyday. It is a story of all the barriers that prevented that experience of God from spreading far and wide being obliterated.

And nobody break down barriers in the early church better than Paul.

So, Jesus just died.
His disciples are scattered.
His movement is seemingly dead, just as the Jewish temple authorities and the Roman governing power were hoping for.

And then (as I explained earlier), Peter came along. I know I've been over this all ready, but please bear with me, because this idea about Peter is one of the ideas that excites me most of all thinking about the early church.

I strongly believe that what pulled Jesus' community back together, the act that we now term Resurrection, was the force of personality of a reinvigorated, convicted Peter. Out of the shattered remains of a community crushed by the death of it's leader, Peter was able to pull together a new church.

This really one of the most amazing examples of community organizing in human history.

Now, I say "church," but church doesn't really describe what was happening accurately. It would be better to say, "Jewish sect." Because that's really how the early church (there's that word again) saw itself. They thought of themselves as reforming the Jewish faith, as moving it forward into a new era behind a new liberator and king. Jesus, in their eyes, was the latest incarnation of Abraham, of Moses, of David; a leader and nation builder for the Jewish people.

And yet, he was so different, too.
He wasn't a great military leader like David.
He wasn't a law giver like Moses.
He wasn't their father, like Abraham.
He was so much more.
He was ushering in God's Kingdom,
one personified in the example of
love and
humility and
compassion and
grace he lived with.

So, those early leaders made a choice. They decided that this message was one intended for God's chosen people only, just as all the others had been. They made a conscious choice to spread their new take on Judaism by way of local synagogues, and avoid the gentiles loving among them and all around them.

But then, something funny happened.

This message of love and humility and compassion and grace: it started resonating with gentiles, too. In fact, in some places, it started resonating more with gentiles than with Jews, who were fairly resistant to this idea of reforming the faith of their fathers in the example of some peasant upstart who had been crucified by the Romans.

Not exactly a convincing leader to rally around.

And then came along Saul of Tarsus.

He had been a Pharisee, one of the most zealous, who had made a career and a name out of persecuting these guys who were disturbing the Temple faith in the name of some "Jesus" guy. Then he has a vision and disappears for a while, and  comes back a Christian. And not just a regular Jewish Christian, but a guy who is famous among Jews, a guy who is a Roman citizen as well and can travel wherever he wants in the empire!

Peter and James and the guys must have thought, what a PR coup is this! Who better to work among the Jews than Jewish rockstar Saul of Tarsus? And, he can visit the diaspora communities across Asia Minor, Egypt and Greece!

And then Paul (that's what he's calling himself now, post-vision) drops a bomb: he's not interested in converting Jews. He feels called to Gentile ministry.

This is the origin of the first major division in the Christian church. Paul, this upstart guy who just recently was killing Christians, now comes striding into the room and wants to change the whole direction of the movement! He wants to subvert the authority of super-leader Peter and James, who is only the blood brother of Jesus. He wants to be more than a Jewish sect; he has a whole eschatological view of Jesus that requires the establishment of a new faith tradition, in opposition and over the Jewish one. He wants to do away with Jewish law and custom and culture in general, and start over.

This isn't what Peter had in mind.

But, Paul is persuasive and convincing, and Peter is willing to show the grace he is teaching as part of the Good News. Most importantly, Peter is smart, and he realizes Jewish outreach is not exactly going gangbusters, and gentiles are actually genuinely interested in learning more about Jesus.

So they commission Paul to go out into the gentile world and start planting Christian communities. And he does, and then there is the whole clash we saw explained back in Galatians, and eventually, Paul fully wins out, the result of both his own force of personality, and the strong push back of Jewish temple leaders that eventually quashes an inter-Jewish Christian sect. This Christianity thing is going to be it's own standalone thing.

So let's wrap this back to our passage from Romans today.

Paul has spent a good portion of Romans grounding the ministry of Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition, via Adam and Abraham. He then touched on the special place of Israel in God's creation in chapter 9. But then, in chapter 10, he recounts the rejection of Jesus and the church by Israel and the Temple leaders. Remember, all this is written to a church that is half gentile, half Jew, and he is trying to appeal them all.

So he makes a linear argument here in chapters 10, 11 and 12, one that is easier to understand now that you understand early church history a little better. Here is that argument in short:

God provided salvation for all people, Jew and Gentile alike.

Men like Peter and Paul were commissioned by God to spread the Gospel to both these groups.

Israel, however, rejected them.

But, Israel's rejection is not the final word on the viability of Christianity.

God has provided universal salvation, breaking down the previous barrier that restricted it to Jews.

After the gentiles are made believers, then the Jewish people will follow en masse.

This is what I've found over the course of this study that is so cool about Paul. He was definitely the progressive, universally-minded guy in the room. Peter may have been the big type-A leader, and James may have been the fire and brimstone preacher who who could make you feel this faith, but Paul was the one telling them to think bigger, to think outside of the Jewish box they were in. Paul saw that God's freely-given grace was for all people everyone in all times. Paul was truly the first universalist. Paul was the guy breaking down barriers whenever and wherever he found them.

We should be like Paul. Walls, border, boundaries, barriers: none of them belong in God's kingdom. We are one people, following one God, in the example of one man.

Paul ends chapter 12 with a wonderful meditation on what it looks like to be a Christian. He never once mentions restrictions on this community; he doesn't recount what a Christian doesn't look like; he isn't interested in setting up barriers to entry. He only cares about what it does look like when you are living a life in true imitation of Jesus. It's beautiful, and it's what this whole big thing is all about. Take these words to heart.

Let love be genuine; 

hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good;  

love one another with mutual affection; 

outdo one another in showing honor. 

Do not lag in zeal, 

be ardent in spirit, 

serve the Lord.

Rejoice in hope, 

be patient in suffering, 

persevere in prayer. 

Contribute to the needs of the saints; 

extend hospitality to strangers.

Bless those who persecute you; 

bless and do not curse them. 

Rejoice with those who rejoice, 

weep with those who weep. 

Live in harmony with one another; 

do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly;

do not claim to be wiser than you are. 

Do not repay anyone evil for evil, 

but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 

If it is possible, 

so far as it depends on you, 

live peaceably with all. 

Beloved, 

never avenge yourselves, 

but leave room for the wrath of God;

for it is written, 

“Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 

No, 

“if your enemies are hungry, 

feed them; 

if they are thirsty, 

give them something to drink; 

for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.”

Do not be overcome by evil, 

but overcome evil with good.

Next: Romans 13-15

For a PDF of the 30 Days of Paul reading plan, click here.

For more info on 30 Days of Paul, click here for my intro, or here for Cassandra Farrin's explanation.

Click Here for Cassandra Farrin's take on today's reading.

Romans 7-9: Free from Condemnation #30daysofPaul

For so long, Christianity has been a religion of condemnation for human beings.

Since the earliest days of the church, Christianity has been rooted in a mindset of judgment and condemnation. Read any history of Christianity (I suggest Diarmaid MacCulloch's masterful and lengthy tome) and you will read a history of people coming into conflict over how they each think the other is failing to live correctly. It's a history of rules and laws and do's and don'ts.

We see this so much today. Christianity in it's modern context is one is which clobber verses are all the rage. We love to point out what others are doing wrong; we love condemning those we think are straying from the path or committing what we view as egregious sin.

This faith, this Christianity, is a religion of rules.

And we wonder why the church is sinking.

This religion of condemnation is not the Way of Life shown by Jesus. Christianity was not founded as a legal code.

Christianity in it's purest form is, simply, love.

Paul hits that point perfectly in this passage. After spending the second half of chapter 7 ruminating on humans' inability to live according to the rules and laws we are supposed to live by, it seems like he is speeding headlong towards more exhortation to live in purity.

And then BANG.

He clobbers us with 8:1.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

No condemnation.

None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

He goes on: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."

This is big, radical stuff. This is, like, totally what that Jesus guy was saying.

In the Kingdom of God, there is no place for judgment, for condemnation, for pointing fingers.

We are enveloped in God's everlasting love and mercy and grace. We cannot escape from it. Paul describes this so beautifully in 8:38,

"For I am convinced that neither 

death,

not life,

nor angels,

nor rulers,

nor things present,

nor things to come,

nor powers,

nor height,

nor depth,

nor anything else

in all creation

will be able to separate us from the love of God."

Yes! Isn't that great rhetoric from Paul? Such a wonderful piece of work; and it's all true! Nothing can ever separate us from God and God's love!

We are forever and always guaranteed to be in God, and for God to be in us, and around us, and loving us. No amount of messing up, breaking rules, violating the Law can ever keep us from that relationship. We are forever liberated from the fear of death found in the law, embodied in sin. We are free.

Christianity is not a religion of condemnation. Christianity is not a legal code.

Christianity is a relationship of eternal life, built on love, sustained by faith, and guaranteed by grace. Forever. No exceptions.

Amen.

Next: Romans 10-12

For a PDF of the 30 Days of Paul reading plan, click here.

For more info on 30 Days of Paul, click here for my intro, or here for Cassandra Farrin's explanation.

Click Here for Cassandra Farrin's take on today's reading.