Wright places considerable weight on his thesis that the Gospel is very much an anti-imperial polemic/attack/rhetoric. Does this thesis hold up to close scrutiny?
The Biomechanics of Pragmatism
A blog of sound and fury, signifying nothing
Scattered Thoughts on Theology and Ministry...
Seeking truth and beauty from the heavenly city.
A desktop app that gives WordPress a permanent home in your dock
An exploration of the works of poet Charles Williams (1886-1945)
Some Thoughts on the Book of Acts and Pauline Theology
“Either we are fools for the world because of Christ or we are fools for Christ because of the world. O how short-lived is the sound of a word of the world! If the world would say to us ‘fool,’ the world will die and its word will die! What then is the value of its word? But if the heavenly, immortal ones say to us ‘fool,’ that will neither die nor is it removed from us as eternal condemnation.” + St. Nikolai Velimirovich
Blogging about philosophy, by a part-time student
A venue for anti-passivist thinking, from metaphysics to social theory
Miscellaneous Musings
A blog devoted to the translation of German New Testament scholarship
A Sydney based theological reading and discussion group
Theology. Philosophy. Life.
| a faith worth keeping |
The name of this blog is A Rigid Designator
"religion is above all an external word" (Lindbeck)
βιβλιο: "book"; σκώληξ: "worm"
Theologians, Inc. 
Sort of – I think the “subversion of empire” stuff in general makes a lot of good points but easily gets carried away with itself. You have to slant pretty hard with readings of the Gospels that make imperialism the central theme – but at the same time, the empire is there and is sometimes criticized. And I can buy that there is an implicit critique in the epistles at times – but again, really not the central concern of Paul et al. Revelation, however. does attack Rome pretty directly if you reject dispensational/hyper-preterist readings. I would say that Romans 13/”render unto Caesar” and Revelation’s portrait of Babylon the Great have to be held in tension when we think about the Gospel and earthly governments. But I’m just a layman.
And NT Wright’s talk of “theocracy” is one of his weaker points (and I like him) and borders on dangerous – I’m not sure if even he knows what that looks like in practice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good thoughts – what interests me is the lack of interest in the subject by non-theologians. I don’t if I’ve ever seen any treatment on criticisms of empire in the New Testament from a sociological/historical perspective.
LikeLike