And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Matthew 24:24 (NIV)

Many in the church are warming up to this idea.  Some in the nineteenth and twentieth century, especially liberal theologies, used the concept to set forth a humanistic agenda of world peace which stripped away any notion of supernatural salvation or atonement theology from the Christian message.  It is also used by some to propagate socialist political theory.  More recently, it is used by charismatics as grounds for a theology of healing and reconciliation.  While some of these may be aspects of evangelical options, kingdom theology serves as what is referred to as theology’s integrating theme.  Some consider it the most basic theological theme that gives meaning to all other doctrines.  That being said, it was surprising to see John Franke and Stanley Grenz offer such little treatment of it in Beyond Foundationalism, especially in light of Franke’s other work The Character of Theology in which he continues this pattern but does use the term at various points in his work, rather affirmingly.  While I considered the idea that it was not within the scope of Beyond Foundationalism, as it turns out they propose community as theology’s integrative motif.  So, there is an obvious intentionality and thoughtfulness put into it, and they even offered a few brief paragraphs as to why kingdom as an orienting motif falls short.  The reasons they provide are (p. 234-235):

• The kingdom of God is hard to define.  But there have been satisfactory, technical definitions.  Also, community itself is not without controversy.
• It lends itself to individualistic theology, even in the hands of liberal theology.  Actually, kingdom theology probably provides the most social motif while retaining the individual responsibility of persons.  Of course they would probably resist the need for such a move in the first place, since he takes seriously that we do not have meaning or identity without the reference of community.  Still, the individuality of persons is retained in Scriptures, so there is no need to fear where kingdom theology only may lead, even as Franke grants.
• Kingdom theology is a pervasive but not a basic theme in the Bible.  While this may be true if looking for explicit references, this is not true if one understand the concept as implicit.  Community, though also convincingly pervasive, falls short in a similar manner.

“In fact, the concept of community forms the content of the kingdom of God.  The divine reign consists of God at work redeeming, reconciling, and transforming creation into God’s intended ideal and thereby constituting the world as God’s realm.”

I don’t know if they realized what they just did here—they resorted to God’s realm as being more basic than community.  God’s realm is his kingdom.  What community as an integrative motif misses out on is all the dimensions of creation that is beside humans; big-picture ecology is gleaned over.  God’s kingdom plan extends to the destiny of creation, and has a wider scope than that of community.  Since the subtitle of Beyond Foundationalism is “Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context,” it makes sense that community is at the core of their proposal.  Not to mention, it is incredibly helpful and useful.  Still, since postmodern theory admits that the words we use actually shape our experience, I think it would be wonderful to see works that treat theology’s task, nature, or method take seriously the term Jesus used to define his ministry.  I am curious as to why they decided to go in a different direction.  The one reason I understand, though still have my reservations about, is that it is an outdated model in a post-monarchical world.

“Bart [Ehrman] is quite an angry man.”

“I do think that the Gospels intended to refer—and succeeded in referring—to Jesus himself and not simply to the community’s faith about Jesus.” (on Barthian heritage)

“If you are a theologian that believes you ought to wait for the biblical scholars to sort stuff out before you can then use their material in your own work, then you might sometimes feel like you have to wait forever.”

“The bible doesn’t use the phrase afterlife—that’s a modern term.  Let’s talk about the robust Christian hope.”

“The role of postmodernity is to preach the doctrine of the fall to arrogant modernity.”

“If we read the gospels and say our prayers, we should be able to do it.” (on how to move into a post-postmodern world)

“The unity of the church for him [Paul] is a symbolic thing as well as an actual thing.  It is the symbol which says, this is is the new humanity—don’t accept any cheap, man-made substitutes.”

“If you imagine a church that stops doing theology, you are imagining a church that is about to split.”

And here he recalls a quote by Crossan which he considers to have been a subtle, though friendly, jab at Wright’s journey in biblical studies.

“If you read Paul first you’ll read Jesus wrong; if you read Jesus first you’ll read Paul differently.” John Dominic Crossan

Relational Intelligence: The Disproportionate Investor – Erwin McManus

Talk on 2 Timothy 2:1-7
-You can only know what you have embraced.  You become what you give away to others.
-Invest in people who aren’t trying to define boundaries but find opportunities.
-On character vs. achievement: We want the indulgences of a general with the responsibilities of a civilian.
-Invest in those who understand there needs to be an integration of character and achievement.
-People with good stories and successful ministries are those who refuse to be victims.
-The wrong intention: When I know everything you know and everything I know I will be more powerful than you.

Community of Jesus – Timothy Keller

Talk on Luke 6:12-36; The Beatitudes as a reversal of values

-Four worldly values: power, comfort, success, recognition
-Four kingdom values: weakness, sacrifice, grief, exclusion
-Michael Wilcock: “Prize what the world calls pitiable, and suspect what the world considers desirable.”  At this point Keller humorously asks “Who wants to join?”
-Christian ethic: Draining yourself of ill will towards people, especially enemies.
-To those who have been burned by the Church: Remember the church is not made up of natural friends, it is made up of natural enemies.  The Christian community is not bound together by any other commonality.  The church is therefore a band of natural enemies who love one another for Jesus’ sake.  Be patient while relationships are transformed.

Sexuality and Christian Hope – Timothy Keller

-Sex is not self gratification or self expression, it is radical self-donation.
-To give yourself to someone so deeply that it results in personal transformation and completion.
-Never have physical oneness without whole life oneness.
-Never get physically vulnerable without becoming vulnerable in your whole life.

Culture – Timothy Keller

-Cultural activity is arranging raw material for the flourishing of human beings.  Christians do this for the glory of God.
-On missions: To charge Christianity with colonial and imperial prostitution is to declare that Christianity belongs only to one culture.  Jesus Christ belongs to Africa, Asia, as much as it does the West.
-Lamin Sanneh, African Scholar who teaches at Yale, wrote Whose Religion is Christianity and comments:
Secularism’s scoffing of “African superstition” is cultural totalitarianism … Jesus did not mock their [Africa's] respect for the sacred … [so] they beat their sacred drums for him until the stars skipped and danced in the skies.
-View Keller’s notes on this sermon here.  Extremely insightful.

Recently, especially from postconversative and progressive voices, systematic theology as an enterprise has been called into question (following the pattern of Anglicans and others?).  But since long ago systematic theology and biblical studies have existed in somewhat of a tense relationship.  Serious biblical scholars and theologians recognize the importance of understanding the original context of a passage when working through exegesis–extracting meaning.  But the difference lies in where each field places its emphasis.  On the one hand we have the systematic theologian who specializes in inference and developing theoretical constructs. Often times they create or apply philosophical categories to bring clarity to a concept (think back to the debates surrounding the nature of the Eucharist during the Protestant Reformation).  On the other hand, biblical exegetes tend to focus on the particular meaning of a text by drawing on as many contextual clues as possible.  In this way, they become experts in historical, literary, cultural etc. studies necessary for understanding a particular passage.

Where the tension lies.  The systematic theologian is vulnerable to accepting categories, concepts, and definitions of words that have been passed on down through a specific tradition.  Sometimes they are modern traditions, sometimes Protestant traditions, sometimes Roman Catholic, and other times very early Christian.  The danger is in applying certain embedded categories—things taken for granted—to a biblical text. It may just be the case that our received traditions are completely foreign to a passage’s original meaning.  This happens when we are not familiar with the original context.  So what we have are theologians who shallowly search the Bible for proof of their embedded theology. This is called proof-texting. Sometimes it is intentional and dishonest.  Other times it is due to ignorance. Both instances are mistakes and need to be carefully avoided.  The exegete, on the other hand, is vulnerable to not following the logical consequences of their literary conclusions.  What seems to happen is they claim what we can know from a text but then throw their hands up, admitting that to go further is speculative and unfounded.  But on most occasions, applying categories to texts offers clarity of meaning. Syllogisms and philosophical categories have proven to be useful, even in biblical theology.

Still, there are some issues or doctrines, important as they are, that the Bible is not clear on.  Or to go even further, sometimes tension exists between what two passages appear to say on a matter.  Here, the systemizer will make every effort to reconcile and harmonize the texts.  They do this by advancing sophisticated theories in an effort to demonstrate that what the text seems to say on the surface is not really what it means.  On the other hand, biblical exegetes tend to be at peace with living in this tension. What they afford is admitting that any apparent contradictions appear as a result of varying literary conventions far removed from the modern reader.

The present dilemma.  Will you focus on biblical studies and be vulnerable to not answering modern society’s most important questions?  Will you focus on systematic theology and be vulnerable to doing violence to a text?  Both fields have seen capable men and women who consider their conclusions with honesty, humility, and excellence.  Nonetheless, we’ve also witnessed greater fidelity to tradition than biblical authorial intent, and been offered simplistic answers from exegetes who discount the value of philosophical method.  Let’s try to participate in the best work of both worlds.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13a (NIV)

At first glance you figure Paul saves the best group for last; those who say they “follow Christ” are the ones who really get it.  But that’s not what he’s doing.  His rebuke is for those who say they follow Christ as much as it is for those who follow another.  This is clear by the words “still another”, and Paul’s lack of positive approval.

So why did they get it wrong too?  I believe it’s because their proclamation was encouraging continued division. You see, it’s one thing to say of yourself “I follow Christ”, it’s quite another to help someone discover that they too should be following Christ.  The spiritual party in Corinth considered themselves right, and they were.  They were supposed to be following Christ.  But once you figure that out for yourself, you need to take that message to the world!  And if you haven’t taken it to your church yet, don’t try to take it to the world.  When someone in the church is following someone else, you only fuel division by not helping them discover that their identity is in Christ also.  Those in Corinth were all in Christ. What a mistake it was for one group of people to horde that truth to themselves, i.e. claim it for themselves and not for others as well.

Spiritual pride is huge today– we’re all victims of it at some point.  One of the ways to overcome it is to realize that what’s ours in Christ isn’t just a personal keepsake.  Don’t sit complacent in your discipleship as those around you are following something or someone other than Christ.  Stop pointing your finger, share your spiritual gifts, and help your church discover that we’re all created to be followers of Jesus.  This is key to unity in the church.

And so happens on the scene a reporter from CBC News–that’s Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those less familiar with Canadian media.  As I listened to the news hour Monday I caught a brief report a Canadian had from the Auto Show.  The way he presented the information left quite the impression of the American auto industry trajectory; a bad impression.  He painted a picture of gloom, disparity, and it left me wondering if he had even managed to kick around some tumble weeds at Cobo Hall.  I hope that this be a simple exercise in demonstrating that facts do not speak for themselves.  The way something is reported can have impacting effects on how a historical event is perceived.

What the reporter chose to emphasize was the huge contrast between the Auto Show now and what it used to be several years ago.  He talked about how barely a year ago both Chrysler and General Motors–two of the world’s formerly largest car companies–filed bankruptcy in 2009.  He added detail about how both companies are slow to recover.  Chrysler is entirely absent from this year’s show since it is still working on car designs since its recovery.  GM isn’t too far ahead–they barely have a few car models scattered around the convention hall, and even those are modest exhibits of small, fuel-efficient cars.  I mean, who cares about those type of cars, right?  You’d think a Canadian would be a little more sympathetic to this idea!  The impression I was left with was a sad one.  Not only did it paint a picture of gloom about Detroit’s auto industry, but it made the Auto Show the last thing on my list that I would want to visit in the next couple of weeks.  In a sense, this shouldn’t surprise us since the culture of our friends to north teaches them that they should relish the idea of big corporations failing.  Or maybe they just suffer from a little bit of an inferiority complex.

Now imagine this: another reporter attends the exact same show.  And in the ABC News slot they begin by talking about how though GM and Chrysler tanked last year they are on their way to recovery, heading back to the drawing boards to think through designs more pragmatically from now on.  They may even begin by reporting that GM has actually begun hiring again.  Then they shift to what’s actually being exhibited at the Auto Show, highlighting several interesting brands or makes that are making a splash with viewers.  Next, they focus on how GM is jumping in right by focusing on fuel-efficient models–something today’s consumers are looking for.  So with a positive tone she admits that while considerably smaller than before, the 2010 Auto Show is still worth seeing, especially as an exciting glimpse into how the American auto industry is recovering from the effects of the poor economy.

In a way, I resent CBC’s take on this event.  It seemed like a drive-by critique shrouded in ridicule.  But the point is this: facts don’t speak for themselves for those who weren’t around to witness an event.  The reporter, writer, historian brings their interpretive lens to every story they cover.  Though both CBC and ABC may not have reported anything contradictory, it almost seemed like they were talking about two different phenomenon.  They may have different underlying purposes in reporting, but that does not mean the events they are reporting on are not historical. Consider how this might apply to our historical investigation of the Resurrection, the life of Jesus, and the early church.   Understand that the New Testament authors did have an agenda (see John 20:30-31; Luke 1:1-4), but that does not mean the events which they investigated and reported on did not happen.  Consider this as you read the varying New Testament accounts.

2010 North American International Auto Show

1. You are a gatekeeper to heaven. (13-14)
2. You can make sons of hell. (15)
3. You should simply tell the truth. (16-22)
4. God wants all of you, all of the time. (23-24)
5. God wants your inside before he wants your outside. (25-26)
6. You can look alive on the outside while being dead on the inside. (27-28)
7. You must leave room for God’s grace in your life. (29-32)

Witherington, Ben.  The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus.  Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
347 pages.

The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus is Ben Witherington III’s most comprehensive treatment of Paul the apostle.  This book is a welcome addition to Pauline literature that attempts to accurately discover the apostle’s identity, and contributes to the scholarly discussion by clear and strong argumentation.  Witherington’s approach is accessible, offering background information that is important for understanding Paul’s world.  In this way, his text is similar to those at the introductory level; detailed discussions are stabilized by the basic information important in keeping perspective healthy.  Still, The Paul Quest has a thesis that is focused and unique enough that it explores various dimensions of his life and character which further the scholarly discussion.  But before the particular ideas of his work are explored, it is worth noting some strengths that are both immediate and easily recognizable.  First, in his introduction Witherington reminds readers why studying the figure of Paul is so important.  The more we know about this influential apostle, the more we will know about the person of Jesus as well.  In other words, a strong connection exists between the historical Jesus and the historical Paul, since Paul’s letters are our earliest sources about Jesus.  Therefore for a Christian, knowing Paul the apostle means drawing closer to the object of their worship—Jesus Christ.  For the skeptic, knowing Paul means historically understanding one of the original forces behind the spread of the Christian faith.  Yet that is not to say that such motivations for embarking on the Paul quest cannot overlap!

Secondly, the structure Witherington chose for organizing his work offers a valuable method for one interested in learning about Paul.  His chapters each begin with several italicized paragraphs that introduce the material that will follow.  The conclusions stated in this section of the text are then supported by evidence in the main text of the chapter.  By providing a brief overview of the contents it creates easy access to crucial information.  The repetition also serves as a valuable learning method when one chooses to read straight through the book.  At the macro level, Witherington chose an interesting way to organize his ideas.  His chapters each describe a particular nuance of Paul’s identity (“Paul the Writer and Rhetor,” “Paul the Apostle and Prophet,” “Paul the Realist and Radical,” “Paul the Anthropologist and advocate,” “Paul the Storyteller and Exegete,” “Paul the Ethicist and Theologian”)  The strength of this approach is that it allows for the author’s particular interests and persuasions to be emphasized.  Sticking to a thematic outline for his book and avoiding the temptation to analyze Paul’s letters on an individual basis provides a sense of freshness and convinces readers that the contributions offered are more important than repeating information that can be found elsewhere.  A weakness of this approach is that nuances and perspectives cannot be exhaustive; they can cause a reader to sense that particular aspects of his identity may not have been treated.

One last remark is due for the book’s structure.  The section on chronology of life is wisely placed in the book’s appendix.  Again, this allows for smoother reading, flow of ideas, and analysis of Paul’s person.  Although important, chronological issues come as secondary in importance.  He even states this in the introduction.  The intent of the book is to examine what type of person Paul was, not what kind of life he lived.[1]

The strongest feature of The Paul Quest is in fact its thesis.  Witherington convincingly argues that understanding Paul’s identity requires familiarity with his context as a first century person living around the Mediterranean Sea.[2] He was a unique individual who lived in a world very different from ours, and ones interpretation might suffer from anachronism if modern Western methods are applied to understanding his identity. Witherington warns of this danger throughout his book, and works to rebut misrepresentations of Paul.[3] At the same time, he offers ways in which we can reconstruct identities of ancient persons living in communities like Paul’s.  A great discussion introduces what actually determined the identity of ancient Mediterranean people.  Generation, gender, geography, wealth, education, and religion are some of the components of ones identity, and individuals were expected to conform to them rather than try to defy or resist them.  Witherington demonstrates that understanding the social norms of Paul’s day helps clarify the struggles, intentions, and meaning of many of his letters.  Roman Citizenship, Jewish Pharisaism, and Christianity are treated as the “trinity” of Paul’s identity.  He does a good job at providing necessary background information to understanding how these influenced Paul’s person.  His treatment of honor, shame, and physiognomy were very clear and helpful.  Still, the section dealing with Paul’s Jewishness suffers a little from focusing too much on his interpretation of the Law.  Some more information on how Pharisees were trained and how they lived might have been useful.  This section may have benefited from some of the points from the discussion on p. 97.  Also, Witherington’s conclusions about Paul’s view of the interplay between the law of Moses and the law of Christ on p. 68 could use some more attention and expansion.

Chapter 3—Paul the Writer and Rhetor—provided a clear and thorough discussion of ancient rhetoric. Witherington did a better job at introducing the matter than other texts out there, and successfully showed how recognizing Paul’s use of rhetoric helps us better understand his person and ideas.  Galatians and 2 Corinthians were used as case studies to demonstrate Paul’s handle on rhetoric.  Also helpful was Witherington’s treatment of ancient letter-writing.  Included in this section were comparisons and contrasts with other Graeco-Roman letters.  This helps readers of Paul gain some perspective, and by comparing Paul’s letter-style to other letter writers from his time, conclusions can be made about what emphases Paul wanted to make when writing his church audiences.

After developing Paul’s use of rhetoric, one conclusion that the author repeatedly points out is that the apostle “prefers to persuade” rather than command his communities of believers.[4] This idea would have benefited from some qualification, because it seems that often times Paul had no other choice than to persuade.  It is difficult to imagine a person whose authority is being challenged still being able to command people (2 Corinthians, Galatians).

Finally in this chapter, Witherington states that his argumentation of Paul’s identity as an ancient person will only be done from those letters whose authenticity have received approval from the majority of scholars.  In doing so, Witherington leaves out the Pastorals.  Though he wants to have his thesis accepted by the scholarly community, he does not hesitate to provide a brief (but strong) case for their authenticity, pointing out the weaknesses in other hypotheses.

In the chapter “Paul the Realist and Radical,” an attempt is made to create a distinction between “submitting” and “obeying.”  The discussion centers on what level of adherence to government authorities is proper for Christians.  Although the Greek “hypotasso” and “hypakuo” are offered to show that the two words are not identical, Witherington’s point suffers slightly from not defining the terms and not actually pointing out what the difference between the two words is.  In his discussion of household codes that follows soon after, the same problem surfaces again.[5] In this case, the author is trying to enunciate the difference between the commands given to wives vs. those given to children.

What may be considered the meat of Paul’s identity by some people—Paul the exegete, ethicist, storyteller, and theologian—is included in the last part of The Paul Quest.  While some scholars contest the idea of a Pauline theology, given the occasional nature of his letters, Witherington submits that at the center of Paul’s thought were stories (narratives).  The theology found in his letters flow from his narrative thought world, which Witherington divides into 5 main series of stories (the story of God; the story of the world gone wrong in Adam; the story of God’s people in that world, from Abraham to Moses and beyond; the story of the Jewish Messiah, Christ; the story of Christians, which arises out of stories 2-4).[6] Within this section he offers a strong apologetic for Paul’s typological interpretation of scripture, against many modern scholars who accuse Paul of “exegetical legerdemain.”

Also found in this section is an interpretation of Romans 7:7-13, which the author suggests is a presentation of all fallen humanity, told primarily from the perspective of a Jewish person.[7] He offers good evidence for such a reading, although it seems much of it clinches on the fact that verses 7-8 make mention of only one commandment, which Witherington argues is referring to the commandment Adam received about the tree of knowledge.  But this seems to ignore the fact that earlier in the context Paul is referring to the struggle with the single commandment of covetousness.  Why can it not be this commandment that verses 7-8 are referring to?  Furthermore, the defense of Paul’s use of the singular “seed” in Romans 9 could be honed and strengthened; his argument was a little less than satisfying.

Conclusion

The Paul Quest consistently provided strong argumentation for the points it made.  Ben Witherington convincingly presented the apostle Paul as an ancient Mediterranean person whose identity needs to be reconstructed very differently from ours.  The different aspects of Paul’s identity were carefully argued and they help modern readers get a sense of what type of person Paul was.  Some of his arguments could use stronger support, but the majority of his work was sound and well written.

While Witherington successfully proved the uniqueness of Paul’s identity, one of the most helpful aspects of his work were his conclusions drawn from the interaction between Paul and his culture(s).  The apostle seemed to have well understood which cultural norms could be harmonized with the law of Christ and which could not.  Ironically, he occasionally used some of the unacceptable ones to prove his point (2 Cor. 11), but in doing so, dismantled the very game of honor and boasting that he was using.  Witherington did a wonderful job at showing how, though Paul lived and ministered in a world that thrived off of honor codes, he managed to turn that which was shameful—a crucified Messiah—into the object of faith for the empire.

[2] Ibid., p. 17.

[3] See p. 87 for good examples of modern classifications that do not suit the social context of Paul’s day.

[4] Ibid., p. 90, 127.

[5] Ibid., p. 189.

[6] Ibid., p. 230.

[7] Ibid., p. 241.

Pretend you were one of the 12; that he chose you and you followed him around as he first began proclaiming the gospel of God.

Put yourself on the scene as he commands, with authority, a demon to be silent.  Then the demon leaves.  Picture the convulsion and the loud noises that accompanied the feat.  Now picture Jesus, seemingly unmoved by what happened.  No loss of composure, no fear.  He is all too familiar with these beings (the fiends that from creation past have attempted to frustrate the plans of the Creator).  When confronted by his Lord, the demon properly calls Jesus “the Holy One of God.”  Imagine that. (1:23-27)

Now think back to your last encounter with the flu.  Consider the loss of interest you had in your activities, the time you spent in bed, the agony of hanging over a toilet bowl puking out the wee breakfast you forced yourself to eat that morning.  Imagine Jesus lifting up someone like this by the hand, and moments later that person bustling around the kitchen, anxiously preparing their favorite dish for the guests they’re about to excitedly entertain. (Mark 1:30-31)

Now think of leprosy, that disease that corrodes human flesh and disfigures body parts almost to the point of nonrecognition.  Consider how people would turn in the other direction when they notice a leper in their walking path.  Remember the last time someone embraced you affectionately…now imagine never being able to receive that again!  Then comes Jesus, and he touches the disease-carrying man.  “I will; be clean” says the Rabbi as the blemishes leave. (1:40-42)

Furthermore, imagine Jesus telling a cripple that his sins are forgiven, and then sending him on his way; bones healed, muscles fixed.  The man picks up his stretcher and walks home (2:1-12).  Also, a man with a withered hand gets a fresh one (3:1-6).  And you’re there seeing stuff like this.  Remember, you’re one of the 12.  Such amazing demonstrations of power.  These are no magic tricks or illusions.  They are acts of restoration and healing, authority and dominion.  Evil submits to good, disharmony to peace, sickness to life.  All because of a man! (the one who called you to follow him)

Now picture yourself floating on the Sea of Galilee; Jesus & company in a fishing boat (4:35-41).  The storm catches you by  surprise and you become frantic.  This lake is almost 700 feet below sea level which means especially violent storms caused by “downdrafts” can be unexpected & scary to say the least.  Water actually starts filling your boat, and you begin to think that you will perish.  Ironically, you notice Jesus seems to be having the best of sleep under these most unaccommodating circumstances.  And you continue to think you’ll perish.  In your ignorance, you actually awake your Lord from his slumber.  Moments later he says…

…”Have you still no faith?”

He’s demonstrated his authority over demons & sickness.  He even forgave someone’s sins!  He’s supernatural and he’s from God.  And you still don’t understand that Jesus is all-powerful.

On many occasions the Gospels have us wondering about the disciples.  Many times we’re left wondering how they could possibly have such little faith, understanding etc.  Especially in a case like this.  But you know what?  Don’t try to think you may have done better!  That’s not the point of the story!  So many times we read scripture and we see in it what we want to see in it.  The point is not that the disciples failed, it’s that Jesus succeeded!  The purpose of the narrative, like the Gospel accounts & the entirety scripture is to point us to a person.  It is to create in us an attitude of worship.

Imagine you were there in the boat.  The crashing waves are suddenly still.  The boat is no longer swaying.  Maybe your feet are still standing in the sea water that infiltrated your vessel; a dramatic element left to help make the impression.  Your feet are immersed, your clothes are soaked, your nostrils smell the scent of sea.  In front of you stands a man, who with a few words caused all to be still.  Imagine the feeling when you finally realize, that Jesus is in fact Lord over nature too!  Unabashedly, you too, would probably turn to your peer and ask, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

“Who is this King of Glory?” the answer came back, “The LORD strong and mighty”
Psalm 24:8

In love ⁵he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. ⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ⁸which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight ⁹ making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ ¹⁰as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. ¹¹In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, ¹²so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:5-12 (ESV)

See also Acts 13:36; Romans 8:28; Romans 9:11; Romans 9:17; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 2:15; Philippians 2:2; Philippians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:10; Hebrews 6:17.

Does God not have a plan for your life?  What about a purpose for you to be driven by?  Yes, and yes.

When we start over-idealizing certain words it can lead to idolization.  Some Christians would do well to remember that we are not metaphysical dualists of the platonic tradition.  God is not expressed in the non-physical world of “forms” (ideas).  Words are not to be worshiped.  Words are a means to an end.  Words are supposed to point us to truth.

Christianity goes one step further- words point us to a person, Jesus Christ.  Should a word accomplish the purpose of God, which is ultimately worship, we should judge less the language used and cast out the fear we attach to it as well.

There is enough room in the vocabulary of God’s church for more than our preferred vernacular.  You have access to “plan, purpose, gospel, sin, atonement, justification etc.”  May the Spirit lead you in effective contextualization and healthy application of  his sacred language.