What the heck are we talking about . . . . part 2

"Radical"

Note the similarity to the word "radish". The word means 'root'. We've made the radical a synonym for extreme, but this isn't really the case. It carries the connotation of starting over from the beginning; taking whatever it is back to its 'roots'. A radical change in government would mean we start over beginning with a revision of even the philosophy that brought us to where we are at. It means leaving no structure unquestioned or untouched. Few changes we make are actually radical. Possibly extreme, but rarely radical. We rarely return to the beginning and revise everything that has brought us to the point we are at. Churches of Christ for example preport to have been a 'radical' movement. Supposedly, we went back to the start and returned to the practices of first century Christianity. Supposedly. Truthfully, we made an extreme move toward congregational autonomy, but otherwise maintained all the presuppositions and practices we could from Catholicism and Protestant tradition. We continue to support a professional ministry, we meet in buildings, we kept the 'sacramental' character of baptism, communion, and Sunday gathering. All in all we did very little that was radical.

"Called"

I say this all the time uncritically. It's strange (and cool) the way we have not specified what this means. Is it a verbal calling? Possibly, though this is more rare. Is it an inclination of personality? Could be. What form does this take, to be called?

In Hebrew the word for prophet is 'nabi'. This most easily translates into . . . you guessed it . . . 'one who is called'. In turn of being called, the prophet proceeds with a specific call to the people of God.

For the purpose of clarification a prophet is not someone who predicts the future. Historically it appears that most of the specific predictions of OT prophets we put in the mouths of the Prophets retrospectively. Not that the prophets did not give predictions at all. One can easily assume they were preaching the downfall of the unrepentant city. This is historically certain, but it is doubtful that they guessed the manner of such catastrophies. These were most likely included in such books years later after the events had gone down.

So what does that imply? Should you throw your Bible away? No. The value of prophets is not their ability to tell the future. Their value is that they speak truth. Their value is that they are called by God to communicate God's truth. Thus they are given the title "called one": nabi.

This is why I find it odd that we so casually will say we are called. Yet, I don't think this is wrong at all. We belong to one of the three prophetic religions. The very nature of our faith is best described as a 'calling'. In essence all who believe in YHWH/God/Allah are thus called, and therefore prophetic. In knowing God we know the ultimate reality. We know truth. We have a relationship to the Ultimate, the Eternal. We are given the ability to discern his will, and are so called to communicate this to the world. We are called for the purpose of calling the world into the intended order. Like my friend Jonathan explained, the synagogue/church/mosque serves the purpose of restoring Eden in the world we touch. This is because we know God, and in knowing him CAN listen to/experience his "call". In essence we are all prophetic because prophecy is the very essence of our faith. Consider that next time you read 1 Cor. 14 (esp. v.18-19). As we learn to speak truth, we embody what we are ultimately "called" to be. We need not concern ourselves with predictions or insight into the secrets of mens hearts. We only need to communicate God's heart, and in that we have achieved the highest form of prophecy. It is something that 5 year olds can do. There is no need for special training. Only humility and openness are required.

"Raised"

I'll leave this mostly as food for thought. What is the ascension? Would the ascension be properly described by saying that God RAISED Jesus to his right hand in heaven? So, when Paul, who offers the earliest account of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, says Christ was raised by God, what type of resurrection does Paul describe?

The way Paul speaks of it through the course of the chapter, resurrection does not seem to imply that the body we are in during life continues after death. We inherit a new body when we, like Christ, are raised from death by God. So, therefore do we believe that Jesus' body came back to life, or instead was his presence described at the beginning of chapter 15 in the form of a non-earthly body?

Could Jesus being raised exclude the resuscitation of his corpse?