First: I was raised 12 years and confirmed as a Roman Catholic. So I was probably tainted from the beginning toward a more contiguous view of God’s work in the world. I loved the RC church until we moved and changed dioceses. Whereupon our family decided (yes, at the dinner table) to leave for another church. Welcome to hyper-dispensationalist charismatic, pentecostal (often known as “recovery group for ex-catholics”). Much of this never truly made complete sense to me. I didn’t understand how God could have two systems of salvation, one for Jews and one for followers of Jesus. So though i mastered my dispensational, pre-millenial theology and rhetoric, the artifice was ready to be rid of.

Spending some time (and some very good courses in Hebrew literature (bible) at the Ohio State University) in the Old Testament was most helpful. Once I began to appreciate biblical hebrew theology on its own terms (or at least with space to hear it apart from a pre-defined position) many things emerged. I think that a good understanding of Hebrew eschatology as expressed in the prophets was huge: heaven is not “up there” so much as it is to be right here, once the day of the lord has happened. so the redemption of this world (tikkun olam), provision for justice–as measured by provision for the poor, enough for all, shalom—these are the sort of things that we should be expecting God to inaugurate in his messiah. And once i was conversant in this perspective, i saw it everywhere in the NT. yes, there were modifications–but the basic pieces to the puzzle were the same. Now I see Jesus administering justice by caring for the poor, broken, hurting, rather than just proof-texting his divinity via miracles. He is embodying a vocation, which was the kingdom’s vocation, and remains the kingdom’s vocation. These sorts of insights do away with a fair amount of wrong thinking that has surrounded dispensationalism.

Finally, seeing Peter/Luke clearly conceive of 1C CE as the “Last days” was definitely a clincher. These guys are not conceiving of the last days as some cataclysmic end of history and time and space. Clearly they see the advent of Yahweh’s presence among men, establishing his reign and presence via his holy spirit, as the Day of the LORD–which is the hebrew eschatological hope. It has not intruded the world in quite the cataclysmic way many might have expected–though that makes it none the less cataclysmic.

I’m at a loss for titles for my eschatology. Inclined not to believe in a rapture (though i wouldn’t tell God he couldn’t if he wanted to). For the present, I think that it is sufficient to know that we inhabit a partially-realized eschaton. The last days began some 2000 years ago, and we are called to work out to completion the same vocation of Jesus, by whose spirit we can spread the gospel of his reign and kingdom. That gospel is of course for the forgiveness of sins, but also for the remuneration of sins–we seek to bring God’s healing to a world broken by sin. Only the post-millenialists and a-millenialist camps can have such a consistent view. At that point, as a pastor i might feel free to consider both a- and post- views dependent upon which might be most required for the needs of the flock. A- if people need motivation (“the kingdom will only happen if you do something (empowered by God and all that, of course)”) or Post- if the need for hope that their seemingly frustrated attempts are in vain. but i digress into another thread altogether…

My inclination is to think that proof texts should die somewhere between the primordial deep-ocean rift vents and in the water.:-) Part of my approach is challenge the reader to work a little harder at getting the the theological narrative that the particular authors are trying to construct. This is different in many ways for each author, but shares much in common. Joel uses exilic (eg Dt 28) language to frame his contemporary reader/hearer’s hope in a return from exile, or new exodus (if you will). Luke cites Joel not solely because tongues==outpouring of Spirit (if for no other reason than this association DOES NOT seem to have existed prior to this point) but because the narrative/theology of Joel has within it the kernel of Zion being called out from among the nations associated with an outpouring of the spirit. This summary of Joel is precisely the theological bedrock for Luke’s ensuing narrative. So (if I might be bold) Luke is seeing Joel be fulfilled by the very nature of his history in Acts (which in part draws out the theological expectation of Joel).

now that sort of awareness of literary, theological history is very similar to OT usages of OT motif as well. In as much as we can tell a faithful story that recognizes the canonical pattern or aesthetic, we may be *more* free to generate prophetic perspectives on contemporary events. On the other hand, the necessity of being thoroughly embedded in a pre-existent canon–where this same thing is occurring–should create some significant limitations on the contemporary preacher. So a contemporary preacher would not be correct to define 911 as a sign of God’s judgment for America’s openness to gays, or what have you; but a contemporary preacher might be able to say that 911 was a sign of God’s judgment for abuse and neglect of the poor, weak and disenfranchised. Both of those statements might be ontologically incorrect; but one of those statements *could* at least be a faithful reading of the theological narrative of scripture.

So what i’m seeing myself write feels a fair amount like NTWright’s (and Newbigin, before him) discussion about the Authority of Scripture, how it functions and how communities figure out legitimate improvisations w/in the “Fifth Act”.

Two questions: First, I’m struck by your application of this perspective to the work of MLK. I think that’s a really wonderful framing of him that is illustrative and provocative. It occurs to em however that in some ways this rather significantly narrows the focus of the OT scope in terms of human trajectory. In other words, it should rather severely restrict the ways in which preachers use the OT to “proof text” their pet topics. What do you think? Does this perspective function to limit or expand the palette of the contemporary preacher with regards OT?

Second, I can imagine discovering diverse OT perspectives was rather explosive for someone coming out of a dispensationalist background. Can you speak to that and the process of how you came to leave it behind? How has that process affected your eschatology today?

Now MLK may or may not have intended any of that. But his intention is not fully the point (both for post-modern reasons as well as many others). This is how community-based, canonical interpretation occurs: certain readings are accepted as true to the situation and community over time, by the community (ala our own scripture). Furthermore, my additions concerning judgment and salvation may or may not be entirely accurate, but they too can be weighed by the community of believers. fortunately they are NOT canonical–so the challenge to any community (especially ones with particularly charismatic leaders) is to never use the leaders’ utterances as a lens–that is, a leader’s utterance can always be challenged in light of conversation concerning the narrative of scripture and the present situation.

i’m typing rather stream of consciousness here, so i hope this makes some sense. please raise questions and i will try to respond as i can.

thanks

Lord i wish i could define a pattern of use–I would have a ready made dissertation. but perhaps hays has already done a good amount of this work already in ‘echoes’.

my pretty well-tested gut-feeling now: OT writers feel quite free to riff on an older text, in many and interesting ways (sometimes in full reversal of the initial point). Nevertheless many of the elements of the initial text STILL impose themselves. NT writers are not doing much differently than their predecessors. there is some freedom with the texts, but they also seem to be using the texts in ways that are quite related to

current interpretation: it seems that authors are looking at contemporary events and describing them in terms of pre-existing stories and also through the lens of these stories. Certain stories are *more* canonical (if i can say that) than others, and are so more definitive for interpretation and more central to the self-understanding of the hearing community: thus exodus’ centrality as a shaping metaphor in the Hebrew texts. we should be able to do something rather like this, i would think . Hays (again) writes “Moral Vision of the New Testament” and it follows on the hermenuetical heels of “Echoes”. In it he takes Cross, Community, New Creation as the defining lenses for interpretation. All OT stuff and contemporary situations are to be viewed with these focusing lenses on. Something like this approach seems to me to be a pretty good start at figuring out the 5th act of the play.

Now–for Luke’s part, i think he’s nearly explicit that this is some sort of New Exodus–or at least a return from exile–but of course his context abounds with exodus imagery, so it shouldn’t be a stretch to at least suggest that this is a facet of how he understands Jesus’ new spirit-community.

Would you paint all or most of the OT passages cited by NT authors in the same vein as Joel by Luke?

Are there patterns of use?

Additionally, would you draw any explicit insight from this into our contemporary usage of either OT of NT passages?

YES!

You have your finger on something here!

I heard an insightful pastor remark on several of the latent problems with charismatic streams of Christianity (he is a charismatic as well), and one of the specific points he made is the tendency charismatics have for navel-gazing.

HS experiences are largely framed in terms of intense ‘me and God’ moments that may originate in, and definitely promote, individualism and consumerism.

Churches with a heavy emphasis on prophecy, intercession, etc. are sometimes lacking in tangible manifestations of justice and compassion (I may pray that God would break the bondage of poverty, but I won’t live in that part of town).

It seems the Vineyard has historically done well on this count, compassion ministry was an essential piece of the DNA from the beginning, however, it doesn’t seem like those two aspects (charismatic experience and social justice) were linked in any way as manifestations of the HS.

I would echo Steve H’s comments, please continue your work! A deeper (or perhaps more comprehensive) understanding of the Spirit’s working is certainly needed.