Archive for January, 2011

Thoughts on the Gospel according to Mark #1

I am enrolled in an exegesis course on Mark at DTS this semester. We just finished introductory matters and are about to head into the text – I am pumped! One of the course requirements is to read one commentary (from a predetermined list set by Dr. Wallace) of our choice. I have chosen to climb the great depths of Joel Marcus’ 2 volume commentary on the Gospel in the Anchor Bible Series.

Toward the end of his nearly 100 page introduction, Marcus has a section entitled, ‘The Place of Mark in Christian Life and Thought’. I found one statement quite simple but quite profound. The following is under the subsection ‘Mark in the History of Religions’:

“Mark’s particular way of interpreting these writings, moreover, follows in the footsteps of Old Testament exegesis of Jewish writers. The God whose advent the Markan Jesus announces, to whom he calls his hearers to turn in penitence and faith, the God whom he trusts to raise him from the dead (an un-Hellenistic concept), is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. 12:26), and not of the philosophers.”

This comment follows a note that Mark only quotes from the Old Testament, which seems to me a quite profound statement in light of the buzzing conversations regarding Mark’s employment of popular rhetoric (Marcus goes against this recent trend – at least according to his introduction).


Radical Christianity: To Be or Not to Be? (Introduction)

I have been and continue to gather insight from a wide variety of folks concerning the topic of Radical Christianity. My next series of blog posts will consider and evaluate such a label. The reason for such an inquiry is personal really. I (think) that I want to be labeled as such; that is, I want to be the opposite of apathetic, indifferent with regard to my faith commitment to Jesus Christ and his Church. However, being the opposite of apathetic is not really enough for me; I want to be “on fire” for Christ and his mission. He has given his life for mine, and I want to give my life for his glory and mission. But as you can see, I (as well as many others, I think) struggle to really say what a Radical Christianity looks like. I have some more specific thoughts, but I do not want to give them away just yet—you’ll have to stay tuned.

The term “radical” can have a positive or negative connotation depending upon how the term resonates within a person. I visited one of my favorite sources in order to get a formal definition of the term. Here’s what had to contribute:


There are other glossary options under the “noun” heading, but all of them are very similar to what has already been stated.


1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.

2. thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.

3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

4. forming a basis or foundation.

5. existing inherently in a thing or person: radical defects of character.


9. a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.

10. a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.

I did edit the definition so as not to include unrelated glossary options (e.g., Mathematics, Botany). Here is another source, The Oxford American Dictionaries:



1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough : a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework.

  • forming an inherent or fundamental part of the nature of someone or something : the assumption of radical differences between the mental attributes of literate and non-literate peoples.
  • (of surgery or medical treatment) thorough and intended to be completely curative.
  • characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive : a radical approach to electoral reform.

2. advocating thorough or complete political or social (or religious) reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party : a radical American activist (parentheses mine).

  • (of a measure or policy) following or based upon such principles.

3. of or relating to the root of something (several examples from Mathematics, Language, Music and Botany are listed).

4. [usually as an exclamation] informal very good; excellent : Okay, then. Seven o’clock. Radical!


1. a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social (or religious) reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims (parentheses mine).

I find the definition of the term “radical” to be very interesting and provocative when applied to Christianity. In one sense, it calls for thorough upheaval of tradition; in another sense it calls for an extreme return to foundational principles.

I recently listened to Max McLean’s dramatic rendition of Martin Luther’s historic Here I Stand speech at the Diet of Worms in Worms, Germany on April 18th, 1521. As an evangelical, I am a child of the Reformation—whether I like the entirety of that label or not. It appears that Luther’s mind, heart and actions were radical—he took the risk of challenging corruption within a religious tradition and called for a return to what he saw as foundational to Christianity.

Fast forward to our time and the state of the Christian Church. How has this radicalism affected the universal Church, the local church, and the Christian life and practice of individual believers? Positively? Negatively? Does our apathy and indifference need to be cured by radical commitments and actions? What is the relationship between on fire radicalism and some kind of Church or local church authority? Can the two co-exist? If so, how? Is the Church the place for radicalism? Or is the world the place for radicalism? Or both? Is radicalism too American rather than something distinctly Christian? As you can see, I do not want to restrict the idea of Radical Christianity to individual practice alone, but also as it is attached to and affects the Church. Nothing we Christians do affects only our own selves.

I hope you’ll join me on this journey. May it lead each of us to a heart that is loyal to the one true God, to his people and to his mission.

In Christ,


, , , , ,