Back to School Party

A good time was had by all last night at the Back to School party. Lots of food, fun, football, and friends. Thank you to the Horton family for hosting!

Introduction: The Gospel of Mark

Have you ever wondered why there are four different accounts of Jesus' life included in the Bible? Maybe you have wondered why you might read Matthew instead of John, Luke instead of Mark, or maybe Mark instead of Matthew. Well, this semester, we are going to be going through the gospel of Mark. How did we come to that decision. Primarily because of Mark's distinctives.

So, here is an introduction to the gospel of Mark from Tim Keller:

"The Gospel of Mark is generally believed to be the first of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). It is considered the model and often the source of the other gospels.

What the Gospels are not
They were not basically instruction. Although the gospels contain dialogues and teaching (like Plato's philosophies) they were basically focused on the historical events surrounding one historical figure - Jesus. Yet, they were also not really biographies, because they show little interest in most of Jesus; life. What kind of biography ignores all but the last three years of a man's life, and then spends one-half of its length on his very last week? However, though they are historical, they are not really histories. When we compare the four gospels, we learn that they do not necessarily give accounts of Jesus; life in the same order in which they occurred. Not only that, they say very little about outside events. There is little effort to put Jesus; life into the broader context of the history of the day. The writer ignores events that the writer of a normal history would include. Finally, the gospels are not legends or myths. Many people have believed they are myths since they contain miraculous elements.

What the Gospels were
What then is a gospel? The word gospel (Mark 1:1) does not mean either 'teaching' or 'record,' but 'news.' An angel was a herald or messenger that brought news of some historical event that had already happened. The most common examples in Greek literature are 'evangels' about a victory in war or the ascension of a new king. We have found an inscription of a royal proclamation that begins: 'The beginning of the gospel of Caesar Augustus". Emperors who had ascended to power or who put down a threat would send out heralds announcing the good news about the strength or inauguration of the kingdom. That messenger would always be proclaiming some historical event (e.g. a coronation, a great victory in battle) which would introduce a radical new state of affairs, a new situation for the people, for they now had to relate to him as king.

Why is this important to grasp? When Christians chose evangelion to express the essence of their faith, they passed over words that Hellenistic religions used, such as illumination (photismos) and knowledge (gnosis) or that Judaism used such as instruction or teaching (didache) or wisdom (sophia). Of course, all of these words were used to describe Christianity, but none achieved the centrality of gospel. This means that the word gospel was chosen to communicate:

First, that the gospel is news about what God has already done for you, rather than instruction and advice about what you are to do for God. The primacy of his work, not our work, is therefore the very essence of Christian faith. In other religions, God reveals to us how we can find or achieve salvation. In Christianity, God achieves salvation for us. The gospel brings news primarily, rather than instruction.

Second, the gospel is all about historic events, and thus it has a public character. In other religions, the stories of miracles and other special events in the lives of the founder are not essential. Whether or not Buddha did Miracle X, does not affect whether the 8-Fold path to enlightenment works or not. But if Jesus is not risen from the dead, Christianity does not 'work'. The gospel is that Jesus died and rose for us. If the historic events of his life did not happen, then Christianity does not 'work,' for the good news is that God has entered the human 'now' (history) with the life of the world to come. But if Jesus came historically, then all people should acknowledge and believe in them.

DATE
Most scholars believe that Mark was the earliest of the four gospels. (careful study shows that Matthew and Luke followed Mark at many places rather than the other way around). Also, there is no clear reference at all to the momentous event of 70 A.D. - the fall of Jerusalem to Roman forces after a Jewish rebellion and the complete destruction of the Temple. It is difficult to believe anyone writing after 70 A.D. could have left such an event out (or even have left it implicit). There is, therefore, no good reason to date Mark any later than 65 A.D. This means that Mark was writing about events just 25 - 30 years before.

That is very important to recognize. It means that there were thousands of eye-witnesses to all these events still alive when this document was written. That has two implications. First, it means that the author had abundant sources for producing an accurate account. He did not have to rely on legends that had been handed down and that could not be verified. Second, it means that there is a control making it very difficult for an author to fabricate accounts. For example, it would be nearly impossible to successfully publish a (false) story in the year 2000 that a meteor crashed in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in 1970 killing dozens of people. There are too many people still alive who lived in Bethlehem at the time. Better to make up a story about the meteor crashing in Bethlehem in 17770. Then your story will be harder to disprove. Thus the dating of Mark before 70 A.D. encourages us to trust his reporting.

AUTHOR
The author never names himself (though cf. Mark 14:51-52), but the unanimous testimony of early church fathers (who knew the apostles and their disciples) was that the author was John Mark, a friend of the apostle Peter. Mark's home was a frequent meeting place of the apostles in the very earliest days of the church (Acts 12:12). He was a cousin to Barnabas, Paul's companion, and was on several journeys with Paul. Later, he worked with the St. Peter, and was with him in Rome when he died under Nero's persecution in the mid-60's A.D. In 140 A.D. Papias wrote:

'Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he remembered of the things said and done by our Lord, but not, however, in order.'

This is, therefore, 'The Gospel according to Peter'. Unlike Matthew, Luke, and John, it begins where Peter comes in to Jesus; life. Peter is usually present, as if the stories are from his perspective. Vivid details are present when Peter is there, but are often missing when he is not. It even leaves out words of praise for Peter (e.g. Matthew 16-17) included in the other gospels.

FORM
Mark was a brand new genre of literature. There has never beenanything like the four gospels. Reynolds Price calls it a 'new thing entirely'. It is almost as if a whole new literary form had to be invented to bring a whole new, unique message. (New wineskins for new wine!)"

What are your thoughts?

Playing For Change

My sister forwarded me a youtube link a few months ago. The video was part of a documentary called Playing For Change: Peace Through Music. I really like it so I checked out the website for the documentary. Turns out, a group of guys got together to record various street performers (and even some famous singers like Bono, Ruth) from around the world singing the same songs. The introduction video does a much better job of explaining it than I can:
http://playingforchange.com/journey/introduction
The video that my sister sent me was this one:





When I saw that video for the first time, I was reminded of another one. A guy named Matt is sponsored by Stride gum to dance around the world, literally. He is a terrible dancer and has always been notorious among his friends for doing the same awkward dance move. One day, he and his friend got the idea for Matt to travel all over the world doing his dance. At first Matt is the only one dancing in the video, but then local people start to join in. They posted it on the Internet and Stride decided to sponsor him. Now he continues to make videos and hasn't held a "real" job ever since. Here is his video:



While Matt's motivation isn't too clear, the Playing for Change guys seem to think that music brings people together and that, when we come together, big things are possible. Do you agree? And if so, how do you go from making music to making "the world a better place"? Also, what is it about seeing people from all over the world come together (in a way) that intrigues us so much? From a Christian viewpoint, how does the gospel play a part in all of this? Some things to think about...

Ruthie

Movie for Thought

On my plane ride to San Diego, Julianna and I sat next to a woman that really wanted to talk. I usually try to avoid eye contact and make it evident that I am only interested in reading on plane rides, but my efforts proved to be worthless with her persistence. As the three of us talked for about an hour, the subject of my job came up. She informed me that she had the perfect movie for me to show the students at All Saints, and made us watch the preview on her iPhone. It turns out that her nephew, a Baylor film student, had made a film somewhat diagnosing the culture of our time and the poor reaction that Christian's have had towards it.


By no means is this video (well, actually just the trailer) a theological work, but I found it somewhat interesting. Take a look below:




Do you think this type of movie is helpful? Unhelpful? Do you think that Christians act as if they have the answers? Should Christians act as if they don't have any of the answers? What do you think of the movie?