Prefixes and Suffixes (997)

Sometimes, the things we add to the beginnings and ends of things appear superfluous.

Words

Certain English words tend to take on unnecessary prefixes.  Consider the plight of “regardless” and “flammable,” which in some circles seem to have lost their identity, becoming bloated and now irretrievably linked with superfluous prefixes (“irregardless” and “inflammable”).

Church Practices

In countless churches, a man designated to preach and/or shepherd (plus, he usually also tends to a multitude of administrative affairs) frequently has his first name prefixed by some honorific title.  ”Pastor Jim” and “Brother Henry” are two examples of this superfluous prefixing.

Also, suffixes are heard in church prayers.  For example:

• “in Your name” (without much real biblical example)
• “in Jesus’ name” (as a thoughtless incantation instead of a spiritually intercessory request)
• “amen” (which doesn’t seem to me to be patternistically enjoined for all time)

The animal kingdom — always something interesting there

A quick glance at the character below might make you go, “Huh?  A brown donkey.  Right.  Why did he put that in there?’  But look more carefully.  It’s a “zedonk” (or zonkey, a type of zebroid) I saw in recent travels, humbly exhibiting an almost bizarre, unnecessary “suffix” (or prefix, I suppose, if one got kicked by it — but it was pretty docile)!

Israel, Syria, and the Christian nation (996)

A long-lived misunderstanding has been perpetuated regarding the nature of 1) biblical Israel and 2) the new “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).  While there surely remains some gray area in this topical arena, it is my intent in this brief post to assert the notion that that modern political entity of Israel has no special place in God’s plan.

[First, as an aside, I'm offering two paragraphs of self-disclosure, since I expect that a few readers will click in based on the blog title and tags, without having previously seen what I write about.  I am a seriously committed Christian. That does not, by any stretch, mean that I should be associated with mainstream evangelicalism, the Christian Right, or mainline Protestantism ... and certainly not with Roman Catholicism (which in my view is thoughtlessly, perturbingly associated inextricably with Christianity; it comprises a system quite distinct from the one described in the New Covenant writings).  While I have close ties to the first "ism," I prefer non-franchise Christian gatherings, I manifest a restorative interest in the unadulterated message of historically attested Christian scripture, and I gravitate toward simpler expressions of church and Christian discipleship in general.

I am always hoping to draw otherwise disinterested readers who would see something new and/or worthwhile in Christianity; my attention-getting inclusion of Syria in the title for this essay was probably a bit disingenuous.  The Inquisitions and Popes and Phelpses and Bakkers and Mormons and so-called Jehovah's Witnesses of the ostensibly Christian world have deeply -- and very publicly -- harmed what could have been a more solid reputation, and I want to do what I can, in my small corner, to give another perspective to stereotypes.  Anyway, my only specific thought related to Syria is that Damascus is inside it, and some important events occurred near that city, approximately in the years 34 and 37 A.D.  See this post on "the birth of Christianity" as chronologized by Paul Barnett.  Now, for the substance of this post. . . .]  

I am only moderately politically aware, but it seems to me that Israel has figured far too prominently in the political policies of the Western world.  I suspect that multiplied attention given to Israel has related, in part, to imputed guilt over such major happenings as the Nazi Holocaust.  I find the major political parties in the US to be needlessly divergent on Israel; these divisions firmly place most Christian interests on the right; and most liberal, inclusive interests (i.e., inclusive of other religious traditions), on the left.  I don’t claim any insight related to foreign policy, but I figure Israel should matter no more than any other nation.  The fact that it does seem to matter more, I presume, is related to religion and maybe history, more than to economy or politics.  (If you’re a Christian Rightist reading this, and I’m ticking you off right about now, stop to think about why you clicked in to this post but ignored those on biblical exegesis or worship or matters related to church.)

Israel is now merely a political entity in God’s eyes, no longer constituting the “chosen people.”  This assertion, if accepted by Christians far and wide, ought to lead to less rancor about Israel and Syria, Israel and Jordan, Israel and Iran, Israel and the Gaza Strip, and what-have-you.  Less rancor, and, dare I say it, more hands off.

Considering NT references to Israel in the past, I had thought it was obvious that the expression “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 (also see Romans 9:6) had nothing to do with the old Israel, but I now think that I was biased and that there could be a double entendre here.  Could the expression refer jointly to these groups?

1. those Gentile believers who “line up” (see Gk. stoichesousin) in thinking that circumcision is immaterial
   
2. the Jewish believers, i.e., if they are really of God in following promise, Spirit, and the Christian New Covenant

In any event, it is clear in Galatians that the Old (Hagar, Mt. Sinai and law, flesh, child-guide, etc.) is painted negatively, so it makes little sense to read “Israel of God” in 6:16 as referring to theocratic Israel/Jews, alone, in a positive sense.  This old-is-bad sense may not be as fully present in other documents, but in Galatians, it is.

Portions of Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9 to 11, are problematic for those of us who believe that, as of the crucifixion and shortly after, the Jews were no longer considered favorably by God on the basis of their Jewishness.  Moreover, even the most careful and well informed New Testament scholars find different emphases in the different documents that make up our New Testament canon.  For instance, Luke’s writings in his gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles are seen by some to emphasize more of the Jewish connections than most of Paul’s letters.  On this point, please consider this note by by Dr. Robert Wall in his paper, “Israel and the Gentile Mission in Acts and Paul:  a Canonical Approach”:

There is a sense in which the deeper logic of a theology of Acts differs from that of the Pauline corpus, although this may be one result of different literary genre.  An historical narrative will tend to privilege the fact of experience as the setting for occasion of the logical reflection, even as Pauline literature tends to privilege core theological convictions as the setting for religious experience.

Here, Wall suggests that Luke’s (inspired) narrative purposes naturally deal with the Jewish lineage.  I might take that a step further, perhaps, by asserting that Paul’s writings on this subject (and most subjects) constituted bona fide theologies more than Luke’s.  In other words, what we have in Paul’s letters (e.g., Romans, Galatians) was more of an intentional, watershed articulation of the new status quo, whereas Luke’s literary purpose was in this respect more narrow, focused on historically connected narrative of God’s work — as it progressed from Jerusalem to the rest of the world.  Inasmuch as Luke was concerned with this progression, it would be natural to build more on Jewish foundations.

As of the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, ca. 33 A.D., the new scene is one in which “Israel of God” equals “people of God according to the New Covenant.”  The current people of God are those who are in Christ, regardless of ethnic background or (former) Jewish status.

I share with most evangelical Christians an inclination to resist unfounded, pluralistic ways that affirm other faith-pathways that supposedly lead to the one God.¹  Consisting largely of evangelical Christians, the “Religious Right” tends to be associated with undying support for political Israel today, yet that very political (military, even?!) support constitutes pluralism, in that it allows room for non-Christians.  To be inclusive of Israel today is, curiously, the more liberal position — a fact that may annoy some of my politically conservative friends.  :-)

I don’t believe Hinduism or Taoism or any other, non-Christian faith system has the answers.¹  I acknowledge a particularly deep-seated fear of Islam, and this fear stems not only from fear of Muslim extremists.  Whatever my fears or yours, these are human and are limited by time.  The Christian Right needs to realize, too, that being in Christ far transcends anything that may or may not happen with world religions and political boundaries in the 21st century.  All these things will pass.

When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” He was saying that His followers should pay taxes submissively; He wasn’t expounding the benefits of wholesale purchase of a political system.

When Peter re-appropriated Exodus and spoke of the “holy nation,” the “people for God’s own possession,” he wrote of Christians, not of the U.S. or Israel.

When Paul advised Timothy singularly to please the one who enlisted him, Timothy was involved in Christian Kingdom, not in a military or political cause.

Christians who seriously enlist on the side of Jesus and His kingdom will be much less concerned with current, geopolitical Israel than with being in Christ.

==========

¹Not believing Hindus and Buddhists, etc., will end up with God eternally doesn’t mean I consign all non-Christians to hell.  God is judge, and I suspect that His grace will include lots of ignorant and erring ones — or else we’d all be damned.  I do believe the (bona fide) Christian faith is singular and should be adhered to by all who have the opportunity.

From Jesus to Paul (994)

I remain struck by the closeness in time between the historical Jesus and the earliest evidence about him.

Even for the important people like emperors the lead time tended to be much longer.  It is likely that fifty years elapsed before Tacitus wrote his account of Nero’s assault. . . .

Paul R. Barnett, The Birth of Christianity, 21

Caveat lector:  This is a post about the dating of events, and about historically attested evidence.  It is “academic,” but it is far from academic in its ramifications.  It takes determination to work through the details in this post.  If you’re not interested in details, just re-read the quotes above, and skip to the paragraph near the bottom with the bold sentence in it.

I’ve been impressed with Paul Barnett’s 1st-century chronologies that grew out of his ardent study of Christian origins.  I borrowed Barnett’s book from my dad’s shelf once and, convinced of its value, promptly bought a used copy myself.  From that volume come these chronological notes.

Barnett suggests the following in his investigation of the timeline.  First, Acts firmly fixes two dates (details in Barnett, p. 24-25) within world history:

1. A.D. 29 (15th year of reign of Tiberius):  initial prophesying of John the Immerser¹
2. A.D. 50:  Paul’s arrival in Corinth

(1) above also fixes A.D. 29 as the earliest possible year for the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.  But in what year is the endpoint for Jesus’s life — the year of the crucifixion?  (This answer will also be the earliest possible year for Saul’s conversion.)

Astronomical considerations relating to Passover have resulted in only two generally accepted possibilities for the last year of Jesus’ life on earth:  A.D. 30 or 33.  I don’t know of anyone who would hold that Jesus’ ministry proper started in 29 and was completed in 30, i.e., was only one year in duration.  Rather, the duration of the recorded ministry is much more rationally set at 3-4 years, starting in ca. 29.  So, the crucifixion and ascension must have been in 33.

Now, about Paul’s conversion … what happened after Damascus Road for Paul, and when?  Both Paul and Luke, whom Barnett finds to be “independent authorities” (i.e., neither copied from the other), have the same sequence for Paul’s life, albeit with less detail in Luke’s accounting (this info from p. 18):

Paul’s sequence (Galatians)	Luke’s sequence (Acts)
P. attempted to destroy God’s church	P. ravaged church in Jerusalem
God revealed His Son to Paul	“light from heaven … voice”
Damascus	Damascus
Arabia
Damascus
Jerusalem	Jerusalem
Syria-Cilicia	Tarsus
[Antioch]	Antioch
Jerusalem	Jerusalem

• For sake of discussion, let’s set Paul’s conversion at 34.  (The earliest it could have been would be 33, the same year of the crucifixion.)
• Gal. 1:18 has Paul’s return to Jerusalem 3 years after the Damascus call.  (The Damascus-Arabia-Damascus phase would then be a total of 3 years.)  The earliest possible date for Paul re-entering Jerusalem is 36, but let’s say it was 37 (arithmetic:  34+3=37).
• Gal. 2:1 has another return to Jerusalem 14 years “after.”
• Scholars differ on whether the 14 incorporates the prior 3 or not.  See * below.
• Details of Paul’s flight from Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32-33) follow:
  • The escape immediately precedes Paul’s first return to Jerusalem, which in turn was at least three years after his conversion.
  • The king was the Nabatean ruler Aretas IV, who died in A.D. 40.
  • The earliest plausible date for the first return to Jerusalem is 37, and the latest possible date is 40 (the year of Aretas’s death).

Again, then:  Paul’s conversion and call would have been between 34 and 37, in order to have the first return to Jerusalem between 37 and 40.

* Now, looking back to the third bullet above . . . if Paul’s second return to Jerusalem were 14 years after his first return, the arithmetic becomes 34+3+14, which adds up to the year 51, which is a year later than Acts has Paul arriving in Corinth.  Impossible.  (Backstep for a minute.  We could consider that Paul could have been converted as early as 33, the same year of Jesus’ crucifixion, and not 34.  The math here would then be 33+3+14=50 for the year of the 2nd return to Jerusalem and the arrival in Corinith.  But, the likelihood that the two arrivals occurred in the same year seems unlikely or even impossible.)  Whether Paul was converted in 33 or 34, the preferable option for dating his second return to Jerusalem is 14 years after the crucifixion, leaving the math at 34+14=48.  The possible time window between Jerusalem and Corinth would therefore have been approximately two years.  In other words, this timetable works; Paul would have arrived at Corinth approximately 2 years a) after visiting Jerusalem the second time, and b) after a mission to Cyprus and southern Galatia.

Aside:  if Paul were converted as late as the year 35, the first return to Jerusalem could have been in 38, and then the second return in 49 (14 years after 35).  It is conceivable, but less likely, that Paul would come to Jerusalem in 49, and make it to Corinth by the next year.

The net effect of Barnett’s reasoning is a sort of chronological “crushing backward”:   the most plausible time frame suggests that key events of Paul’s life occurred a) earlier than is sometimes thought, and b) closer to one another.

Barnett asserts, “On the hypothesis that the crucifixion occurred in 33 we conclude that Saul the Pharisee was converted about a year later, in 34, and that he fled from Damascus to Jerusalem in 38 (Gal. 1:18)” (PB … or, possibly in 37  -bc).  The import of this hypothesis is that Paul was then quite an early convert, having come to faith in Jesus about a year after His ascension.

Barnett again:  “The ramifications are considerable.  Paul the early convert is chronologically the first (extant) Christian theological writer, and his christology is as advanced and developed as any. . . .”  “… The christology he articulates was formulated within that brief span between the crucifixion of Jesus and the conversion of Paul.” (cf. Gal. 1:11-12,17)  (PB, p. 26).  In other words, Jesus’ identity as Messiah was already being set forth by 34, the likely year of Paul’s conversion.  Paul then continued said expounding in his missionary preaching, documented to have begun by 37, after the first return to Jerusalem.  (Of course, any preaching in Damascus [see Gal. 1:17 and Acts 9:22] and Arabia would also have been presenting Jesus as Christ, but we have no canonical documents that offer any further details of Paul’s 3 earliest years.)

An approximate, resultant timeline is as follows:

1. 29:  ministries of John the Immerser and Jesus of Nazareth begin
2. 33:  Jesus crucified
3. 34:  Saul converted
4. 34-37:  Saul-Paul’s Damascus-Arabia-Damascus phase
5. 37-38:  Saul-Paul escapes from Damascus and returns to Jerusalem [37-48:  various churches established]
6. 48:  Saul returns to Jerusalem
7. 48-49:  letter to Galatians
8. 48-49:  visit to Thessalonika
9. 49-50:  1st letter to Thessalonians
10. 50-51:  visit to Corinth

The evidence points solidly to a firm christology established very soon after Jesus’ death.  Incidentally, scholars differ on which was written first — the letter to Galatia or the first one to Thessalonika, but Barnett tends to think Galatians was written ca. 48-49, just prior to Paul’s visit to Thessalonika in ca. 49.  Whether 1 Thessalonians or Galatians was penned first, it is difficult for any rational mind to deny that

• in the years immediately following his historically attested life, Jesus was proclaimed as Messiah/Christ
• within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion, the people of the nearer of the two Antiochs labeled the disciples as a movement

Christian faith is attested historically and undergirded solidly.

====================

¹ In these confused days, for sake of clarity, “John the Baptist” is best rendered “John the Immerser.”

Let us often be reminded that “baptize” did not originally suggest anything other than dipping/submerging/immersing.  Pretty much every language scholar agrees that that is what the word “baptizo” means.  What they differ on is whether humans in later centuries have the right to alter the “mode” to include pouring or sprinkling.  I assert that the antecedent word dictates the mode — leaving no safety for adjustments based on convenience.  Further, even if the word “baptizo” had a range of meanings that included sprinkling, the symbolism of identifying with Jesus’ burial and resurrection is far too strong to accede to a method other than immersion.

Expected answers (992)

As I begin this essay, I’m watching a master at work.

At the performance, two days later

He is a musically gifted conductor with a long-developed, international reputation, and an artist I’ve had the honor of working with in more than one symposium.  He, like all the rest of us mortals, has a pedagogical crutch/quirk or three.  The one I’m thinking of hasn’t hampered him much, but I still notice it:  he has the habit of asking a very specific type of closed-end question.  He just queried, for instance, “Trombones, at D, I need a little bit of what?”  The “what” is a blank he’s ostensibly asking for help with, but there is only one right answer, and everyone in the room knows it.  As I said, this little teaching crutch works fine for this master conductor, but it’s a minor irritant for folks like me who dislike feeling like a blind sheep,¹ so I resist it.

I’m more bothered, though, by expected-answer word formulas (incantations?) that play a part in so many churches — of a) the mainline protestant, b) the more evangelically oriented, and c) the Roman Catholic varieties.  If a responsive reading or some such is specified thoughtfully and theologically soundly, it’s not so bad (although rarely truly inspiring for me).  What I react more negatively to is these:

1. “The Word of the Lord” ==> “Thanks be to God”
2. “God is good” ==> “all the time” // “All the time” ==> “God is good”

Taking those in reverse order:  I definitely do affirm that God is good all the time; I just don’t care to parrot that truth with a covey of other parrots.

And, regarding the first incantation, I might or might not believe that what was just read in church constituted “the word of the Lord” more than “the word of us.”  If I perceive it to be more employed as our word than as the Lord’s, I’m hard-pressed to recite “Thanks be to God” with the same enthusiasm.  Why my negative cast here?  Because the “thanks be to God” utterance, at worst, could be tantamount to shading the light around God’s throne by highlighting some human misappropriation.  In other words, I want to be sure that it’s truly God’s voice speaking, as opposed to some stilted, misapplied, or irrelevant phrase masquerading as God’s word.

So, whose word was it?  I suppose there’s no solid answer, because communication can be complex, especially when there are many people in a room.  Determining whose word it has just been may involve

• consideration of the reason(s) the particular passage was selected (be careful not to be too suspicious … and also be careful not to be too gullible!)
• awareness of the passage’s literary and/or historical context
• assessment of the relative scriptural literacy and spiritual maturity of the group

(Generally, the more literate and mature the perspective, the more a passage may legitimately be separated from its context without misunderstanding.  The more developed the group, the greater the possibility that the passage might be well applied even when not heard in its context.)

Even if scripture — of which I hold a very high view — is used well, I retract from the call for expected answers.  I simply don’t prefer them.  They don’t thrill my soul.  They don’t ignite my passion or inspire me to worship more richly or to live more devotedly.  Those of you who are more trusting by nature, and more captivated more by large-group dynamics may naturally feel otherwise, but I offer these critical, introverted thoughts to help round out your thinking.

And now, with thanks for their existence and acknowledgement that their imperfections are minor, back to music and masters that do thrill my soul. . . .

===========

¹ Feeling like a blind, helpless sheep — as though I have no initiative or insight in myself —  is to be desired and avowed when Jesus is the Shepherd.  Since I repudiate the notion of apostolic/papal succession (!), though, having a “pastor” ask this kind of thing of me is far less appealing.

To no real (good) effect

Consider these human enterprises:

• Intentionally fouling an opposing basketball player when your team is down 10 pts in the last minute of the game
• Arguing w/the ump after an “out” or “strike” call
• Sprinkling an infant in a religious ceremony

I don’t recommend spending time in any of the above activities, because not a one of them will have any real results for the people directly involved.

Real (2) — doctrine and practice

I’ve been aware of so-called seeker-sensitive churches¹ for perhaps 20 years.  I’ve always thought that was a worthy goal, but have come to accept that being seeker-sensitive is elusive and even over-rated.  Every church I’ve ever visited has been “churchy” — inherently not “real” and not seeker-sensitive, and therefore not attractive to most outsiders.  To some extent, being “attractive” equates to being “real.”  (No one really likes fake.  No one is deeply drawn to facades and veneers.)

I remember my very good friend Greg, when “pastoring” (or perhaps attempting to pastor, in my non-pastor-driven-paradigm church), trying to probe some of the congregation’s practices.  I took it that he wanted us to examine some of our particular veneers.  Impersonating a non-existent visitor, he challenged, ”Why do they sing like that?!” (perhaps especially targeting those who had never been in another denomination’s²  gatherings).  We needed to realize how odd we were in the singing arena — not necessarily to change things there, but at least to realize who we were and what outsiders’ impressions could be.

There are many aspects of a congregation’s identity and praxis that deserve some introspection, too, and maybe some scrutiny.  Not every specific should be tenaciously guarded.

Believing the above, although I have been lonely at many points, I have continued to probe my religious heritage.  I believe the inheritance of the Stone-Campbell movement — and actually, it can no longer be classed a “movement” — is worthy of love and respect, although it has veered off some of the better courses it originally set for itself.  (If you didn’t at least scan footnote #2 when its number came up above, would you please do so now?)

It strikes me now, in considering and writing about “real,” that an intersection of the doctrine and practice of 1) “The Journey” and that of 2) a run-of-the-mill Church of Christ congregation might be instructive, if not intriguing.  So, here, I’ll paste in The Journey’s web statements and offer commentary from a CofC perspective.  The CofC, as some of you know, doesn’t have a standard “faith statement” or creed — although “vision” and “mission” statements, plus some thinly veiled creeds, have been cropping up in bulletins and on websites for years.  Truth be told, there’s a tacit set of doctrines that could be seen as a baseline “creed.”  We just don’t generally hold them forth as such.³

Onward to The Journey’s “faith statement.”  I’m no theologian and not even much of a church historian, but I have enough experience in the CofC to formulate a few responses to some of this.  The original statements will be in bold; my comments will be in italics.

1.  The Journey believes that God is infinitely creative, so we express our faith in infinitely creative ways.  We’re Spirit-led without being weird and mission-minded without diluting the message of Jesus.  We’re not scared of culture or seduced by it. Our approach to church isn’t traditional, but our commitment to Jesus shapes everything we believe, say, and do.

The CofC would say most of that these days, but the nicely qualified “Spirit-led” wouldn’t have been a CofC phrase until the 70s or even 80s.  Many congregations today would still shy from such a statement, irrationally fearing that attributing leadership to deity would be tantamount to denying scripture’s instructional place.  ”Hogwash,” you say?  Yep.

Not diluting the message of Jesus would resonate with most of “us” in the CofC, and congrats to The Journey for claiming, and doing (based on my limited experience), just that.  

The CofC is typically much more “scared of culture” than The Journey, and has tended not to be seduced by it.  In other words, The Journey aims to hold these two in appropriate tension, whereas the CofC has traveled the more counter-cultural path more often.  Now, to be counter-cultural can be evidence of either a scaredy-cat or a courageous man, and I’ve seen both.  Inasmuch as I’m on target here about the relationship of acknowledging and using culture (acculturating?) on the one hand, and seduction by culture on the other, The Journey is clearly more balanced.  I would also hazard that it is more relevant than most CofC groups, although perhaps not without a culture-related pitfall here & there.

Further on the “traditional” concept:  I find a sense in most CofC congregational leaders that “traditional” is not all that bad.  Some think they’re not very traditional (most of these are, anyway, no matter what they think), but whatever … most of them go through their church stuff sitting and standing comfortably within RM tradition — and in some ways within mainline Christian tradition, as well.  ”Traditional” almost always, at some point, collides with “relevant.”

2.  We believe God has given us a book (the Bible) that is true and can be trusted. It was written by men but inspired by God – and every part of it points to Jesus.  Everything that’s described below may be helpful, but when the dust settles, the Bible is our statement of faith.

This statement would meet no disagreement in the CofC.  I myself would pick at minor points:  1) the Bible is better described as a library of various books/documents, not as a single book; and 2) I might have opted for “written by men who were specially inspired by God.

Pickiness aside, the idea that the Bible is the ultimate guide for faith and practice, seen here in updated, more understandable wording, certainly constitutes common ground for these two groups.  And oh, how I wish more churches would get serious about this principle.

In the eyes of cynical seekers, belief in the truth of the scriptures might smack of blindness, i.e., not being rational or real.  This is where “real” must take a back seat to relevance, though, and The Journey does a good job of not retracting.  To believe in the truth of the scriptures is to believe you have something authentic and relevant to offer people.

3.  We believe in God.  He created everything, including you and me.  He is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present and worthy to be loved with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.

Again, no disagreement here.  (Well, OK, grammatically speaking, I take exception to the notion that we all have one collective heart, soul, mind, and strength; I would have put that in the singular or left out the “our” altogether.)

4.  We believe God is revealed fully in Jesus, who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross for our sins, and was supernaturally raised from the dead.  This planet hasn’t seen the last of him.

Standard stuff, adhered to by most evangelical (not necessarily mainliners; some of those are out of the closet with their theological liberalness these days) Christians.  ”Supernaturally” is a good word that gets at the heart of the matter, neither clouding it with the word “miraculous” nor skirting it by not mentioning the resurrection at all.  I particularly like the second sentence and think Paul and Jesus would smile at it, too.  This is at once an engaging, “hip” expression and a biblically true one.  Way to go, Journey.

5.  We believe the Holy Spirit is God in his power and presence, drawing people to him, saving us, and empowering us with gifts to work for him and fruit in our attitudes and relationships that testify to him.

I’m very impressed by this statement.  I infer, first, a wise, spiritual openness to the miraculous working of God.  Second, I perceive a stopping short of requiring that one must accept that God works now just as he did when initially confirming the deity of Jesus (in, say, the years 33-63 or so).

I find nothing in this statement that most thinking CofCers would disagree with.  To argue that the Holy Spirit is a definable “third” of the “Godhead” — which The Journey does not do here — is always scripturally a bit tenuous, but to affirm that the Holy Spirit is God at work is requisite to biblically based faith and practice.  

6.  We believe all human beings are spiritually lost, wandering around trying to make sense of this life and consistently messing it up.  Only through Jesus can we be found, and this is very much what God wants.  If we submit to Jesus’ leadership as Lord, we will be saved; if we continue on our own path, we will end up separated from God forever.  This is something God does not want.  That’s why Jesus came, and it’s also why…

First sentence:  check.  Second:  check.  Third (“If we submit …”):  big check.  Hold that thought, and skip the rest of this paragraph if you’re not interested in the Stone-Campbell Movement or the Church of Christ.  The phrase “if we continue on our own path” could be found in many conservative, dyed-in-the-wool CofC sermons, as the preachers attempt to paint a simplistic picture.  In other words, they want pew-sitters to believe that it’s all very easy:  1) if they continue on their own paths, left to their own devices (read:  the devices of other religious groups or their own misunderstandings of religion or the Bible), they are hell-bound.  And 2) on the other hand, if seekers will simply accept the RIGHT path (read:  the one that lines up with my opinions and interpretations), everything will be fine.  Let alone that the bulk of the given CofC preacher’s interpretations might be biblically sound; this sometimes amounts to little more than arrogant posturing.

Much better to do as The Journey has done, calling attention to Jesus’ leadership.  Leadership is a word I haven’t often seen in connection with “lordship,” and I find it both helpful and relevant, although it would be a trifle light if not accompanied by the theological underpinnings of what it means to have a Lord.

Style points there, by the way, with the ellipsis that leads the reader to #7!

7.  We believe in the church. It’s a community where people can find Jesus and follow him fully. The church isn’t perfect, but Jesus its leader is. God doesn’t want us doing this spiritual life in isolation; that’s why he created the whole church thing in the first place – and he’s still totally committed to it. The church is incredibly important because we have a much better chance of succeeding in our spiritual journey when we’re surrounded by other people who are moving forward in theirs.

The CofC would go with this, mostly.  Although on paper it would agree, it might not have thought to emphasize the imperfection of the human church.  Often, the CofC has been found (and can still be found) calling attention to its rightness, its supposed doctrinal purity.  Again letting alone that there are many right things in the CofC, and, I happen to think, more than in most other religious groups, it is downright repulsive to brag.  The CofC should get over its insistence that it is “right” and merely keep trying to restore, to reform, to draw ever closer to God’s revealed will.

The Journey gets an A for #7 (and really, for the entire series of statements).  It’s attractive to acknowledge that the church is imperfect and to call folks to community.  It’s also compelling to portray God as “committed” to church in this age.

In my next post, I’ll share some thoughts about the reality of music in The Journey church and in other, would-be seeker-friendly churches….

==================

¹ I’m leaving the ill-begotten “seeker-targeted” and “seeker-oriented” labels alone.  ”Seeker-sensitive,” however, is either neutral or good.

² Still … STILL, there are many in the Church of Christ (or Churches of Christ, or churches of  Christ — take your pick — they are used interchangeably) who stubbornly refuse to believe it is, in point of fact, a denomination.  I don’t expect ever to sacrifice the scripture-based ideal in my heart — that there be no sectarian denominations.  The Lord’s church transcends this humanly conceived, and humanly perpetuated, group.  I happen to believe that many — perhaps most — who call themselves members of the Church of Christ are also part of the Lord’s universal church.  But, c’mon, guys, reality is that the Church of Christ, even without an earthly HQ, is a Yellow-Pages-identifiable sub-group.  It has many other hallmarks of a denomination.  Its denominational language and the obvious loyalties of some of its adherents betray its status.

³ It is not my purpose here to advocate for creeds.  Far from it.  I think creeds run the risk of superimposing man’s mob-mentality word on top of God’s.

Kick it

“Kick it with your toes.”  

- advice from bad soccer coach in the movie Playing for Keeps

Even as a non-soccer player, I didn’t think that was right.  A few seconds later in the movie, when my suspicion was confirmed, I thought, “Hmm … advice given by someone who doesn’t know whereof he speaks … welcome to my life in church pews.”

I’ve heard a lot of bad advice given from pulpiteers and other officials.  There is way too much ineptitude manifest by public leaders.  But after my own preachment comes a confession. . . .

Although many are giving advice as bad as telling 8-year-old soccer players to kick the ball with their toes, it is neither spiritual nor wise to do what I’ve done:  I’ve pretty much turned off advice from professional religionists.  Maybe I’d do better not to block the “channel,” but rather, to be discriminating in my listening and viewing.  There are still a few decent coaches out there who not only understand the basics but can even help me move beyond them.

The ultimate Galatians: laying down the Law (1)

The following excerpts are from Ben Witherington, “Excursus:  Laying Down the Law,” in Grace in Galatia (Eerdmans, 1998).  I think they are of the utmost significance.

For Paul, the encounter on Damascus Road led to a drastic re-evaluation of the Mosaic Law.

By what rule or standard will the Christian community live and be shaped?  Paul’s answer:  cruciform and Christological … it is to follow his example and the pattern of Christ and walk in and by the Spirit.  It is, in short, to follow the Law of Christ which is not identical with the Law of Moses.

Paul does not think the Law is against God’s promises, he just does not think that Law-keeping is the means through which those promises come to fulfillment. . . .  The effect and the purpose and intent of the Law are not one and the same.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians is neither antinomian nor an attack on legalism per se.  It is a historical argument on salvation, recognizing what time it is, and what covenant God’s people are (and are not) now under.

Some Scriptural continuity should not be confused, however, with what we may anachronistically call “ecclesial” continuity between “Israel” then and now.  Paul’s view is that the way to obtain the benefits of the promise to Abraham is through Abraham’s true and ultimate seed Christ, not through continuing to keep the Mosaic Law.  It is Jew and Gentile united in Christ (emph mine  -bc) that are viewed by Paul as the people of God.  In short, Paul is arguing that the people of God were narrowed down to the elect one, Christ, the [S]eed—after which those who are “in the [S]eed” … are “in” the people of God.

More to come in two days, in the final post on Galatians.  This entire series, which includes text-based and devotional posts as well, may be accessed through this link.

Voices: sectarianism within us

In recent posts on this site, I’ve echoed several “voices” that I thought should be heard.  I, and some of you, have heard the voices of

• politicians and political activists
• the media (for better or worse)
• a restorer of ancient Christianity
• an evangelism methodologist
• the past

And in this “voices” post, I suggested implicitly that the term “Christian” is used variously and inaccurately.  I then specifically invited answers to a query about the use of the word “Christian.”  Only one reader bit (thanks, John), but presumably, more of you at least thought about  it.  “Christian” is a term that deserves thought.

Among the worthwhile slogans of the Campbell-Stone American Restoration Movement is this one:  “call Bible things by Bible names.”  We might infer from that suggestion that, since the Bible doesn’t speak of trash cans or trains or traffic, terminology in those spheres may be relatively unimportant.  However, the Bible does speak of pastors and parables, of sin and salvation, of Christ and Christians — so we ought to speak biblically accurately of such things.

And so I come to the question again:  what of the word-concept “Christian”?  What does it commonly mean?  Biblically, what does it mean?  And therefore, how should we use the word?

Put another way, how may we rightly define the term “Christian”?

About 15 years ago, my own voice was heard from a pulpit, of all places.  (I may soon have the opportunity to “preach” formally again, but it will be more exegesis than sermon at this point in my life, and this is all beside the point.)  In that fateful sermon, which ended up upsetting some folks sincerely and others vicariously or by projection, I called our small-to-medium-sized Church of Christ — which was fairly moderate and fairly healthy — to examine ourselves.  I believed then, and still believe, that sectarianism exists within us.

Now, to those peering in from outside the provincial history of my movement, this may not appear to be a particularly insightful or incisive observation.   “What’s the big deal?” some might ask.  But most congregations of our stripe have for long years been weaned on the notion of being just Christians and nondenominational, nonsectarian.  Many are (or would be, if the eye-wool were peeled back) horrified by the realization that we are now, by most estimations, a sect.  By way of defining terms:

• A movement is the evidence of collective energy for a cause.
• A denomination is a named entity that grows out of a movement.
• A sect is alternately thought of a) as a delineated segment from a movement, or b) as a denomination crystallized.  The use of the term “sect” instead of “denomination” is sometimes intended to sound more harsh, implying divisiveness and not mere division.
• A cult would be a sect that engages in brainwashing and/or illegal activities, usually based on one or more charismatic personalities, and marked by either excessive, strongly counter-cultural behaviors.

The above definitions are my own, formulated within 4-5 minutes.  They are not put forward as exhaustive or as even commonly accepted, but they can serve as working definitions for the purpose of this blogpost.

In naming the sectarianism within us in the Church of Christ in my sermon years ago, it was my purpose to call out those who would render blind whole groups of people to the self-righteous obstinacy of the decades — and then, to spur us toward serious thought about what it is to be a “Christian.”  What does the term really mean, and how did/does it function as a label?

I was taught on many occasions that “Christian” means “like Christ.”  But if we push that definition too far, those in a sectarian denomination may begin to believe they are the most like Christ, setting themselves up as “the only Christians” instead of merely being “Christ-followers only”.  One illustration I employed in moving toward a variant definition of “Christian” was the label “Bostonian”:  a Bostonian is not necessarily like Boston, but she is of Boston, belonging to Boston.

If we can re-envision ourselves as being of Christ, based on the scriptures’ idea of a) coming into, b) remaining in, and c) growing in that state, well, I think we could move back from being a sect or denomination to a movement.

Rant on a gun-rant

License plate in a Bible Belt parking lot

The message above represents what’s wrong with the NRA or militia mindset.  Maybe there’s an appreciable difference between those two, but from where I stand, it’s about the same.  (I’m like a monkey looking at two books — say, a biblical commentary and a Beatles fake book — the books look basically the same to a monkey, although if you’re a Bible scholar or a Beatlemaniac, the comparison is a trifle offensive. Anyhew….)

Two things not found in the Bible:

1. the (mis)conception that a Christian has the right to kill in certain circumstances
2. the (mis)conception that, in order to be a Christian in the U.S., one has to be a Republican

On the first point: I’m well aware that there are a couple lines of thinking that would lead to the justification of killing.  I don’t subscribe to those lines and believe they are misguided, but they do exist.

On the second point: I’m not encouraging aligning with the Democratic party, either.  Both major U.S. parties seem pretty messed up, inasmuch as I know what they’re all about.

I would point out to all my Republican-card-carrying Christian readers that it doesn’t help their conservative causes when such slogans as the above are touted by_____ . . . .  (I must admit that I almost typed the word “idiots” there, but the fact is, the people who a) manufactured and b) bought that license plate thing are people for whom Jesus died.  Even though I don’t know their identities, it’s better if I stop and consider them worthwhile souls instead of calling them names.  ”Rednecks” might be accurate, but I’ll just leave the blank as is.)  It’s rather ridiculous to assert the “right” to own a gun illegally; scofflaws cannot be helpful in resolving conflict or in living peacefully, insofar as it depends on them.

A quasi-slogan asserts this axiom:  ”my country, right or wrong.”  On the surface — and I mean very shallowly — someone espousing that one could be seen as “loyal” (albeit imbecilic) on some level.  But Christians must hold to higher standards.  If a denomination, or a country, or a club, or whatever entity moves down a wrong path, we must be individually courageous enough to buck the misguided trend.  Whether it manifests itself as a stubborn refusal of Christian fellowship to someone of a politically different mindset, or a mouthing off about the right to own a gun even if it is illegal, wrong is wrong.

There are quite a few subsections of the “conservatives” in the U.S. at present.  These sub-sects, which may overlap, include NRA folk, the rich and super-rich, and most evangelical Christians.  I hope that the person who had that license plate on his/her car does not currently claim Christianity.  Surely not. . . .

======

This post also (sadly) deals with the topic of guns and Christians.

This one deals with Newtown and violence in general.

Worship: spiritual, timeless, chosen

[The following is excerpted, adapted, and expanded from my reply to a reader's comment on this prior post.]

Generally, under the New Covenant, I see the trends as having moved away from the physical, toward the spiritual.  (For more, please see this post on the Old and new.)  I tend to support and resonate with emphases on the spiritual over the physical.

In the realm of worship, I did go through a phase, some years ago, in which worship needed to be more physical, but I’m not altogether sure my “need” was of the Lord.  These days, I’m more interested in what’s going on beyond the physical.  Physical manifestations of worship may not be entirely immaterial, but the seen should at least be subservient to the unseen.

Under the Old Covenant, God prescribed certain physical acts of sacrifice and priestly temple service.  Although prescribed details — or legislated specifications, if you will — are certainly present in any lucid consideration of the relationship between the divine and the human, I take some exception to an analysis based outright on prescription (either under the Old or New).  As one considers Joseph, Enoch, Abraham, David, Elijah, and others with hindsight, there seems to have been more than legislation at work as they related to God.

Based on the examples of worship in, e.g., Psalms, John, Revelation, I take stronger exception to any suggestion that all worship, as an act of the spirit and/or body, was somehow eradicated with the coming of Jesus.  The worship of believers in Jesus Christ, like immersion and basic meals and the assembly of Christians, seems to me to have been something they simply, naturally did (a lot), without the need for the apostles et al to write about it at every turn.

Adoring, worshipful response is natural — and, I would say, anticipated and desired and right. (Personally, I’d stop short of saying worship is “commanded” or “demanded”; I hear those words as needlessly negatively charged in this age.)  I do think God continues to seek worship of the proskuneo sort.  Note Ps 69:32, Ps 70:4, and 2 Chron 16:9.  While the “seeking” of the last verse may be understood variously, as seen in various translations, attributing to God the notion of “seeking” doesn’t for me render Him heavy-handed.  I don’t think we paint God as some sort of tyrant or egomaniacal being when we understand Him as desiring worshipful response.

Until He moves me on, I’m content with exploring the ways and means of proskuneo — because it seems good for me, and because I’m convinced it pleases God.  Worship may ultimately be pleasing to Him specifically because it is something I choose, whether I want to think of Him as asking for it or not.

Probably not merely incidentally, I take Revelation (after chapters 2 & 3) as primarily presenting a timeless picture of the eternal kingdom, and I hang some of my worship “hats” on the hooks shown in chapters 4, 5, and 19:6ff. I presume that the active proskuneo occurring there indicates that worship is a timeless assumption for the believing community.

In the meantime, I’m not at all content with my efforts or with the corporate worship I experience most often (yesterday’s prayers seemed either presentational or flaccid, and the songs rather lethargic and uncommitted) . . . but I keep trying to worship, as I believe I will eternally.

Voices: using the label “Christian”

If a journalist in the Middle East says “Christian” in reference to an area, we might assume she means the non-Muslim, non-Jewish part of the city.

If a liberal politician says “Christian,” he might mean fundamentalist rightist or maybe that which is to be avoided at all costs in order to get elected.

If a Roman Catholic says “Christian,” he probably means Roman Catholic.

What do you mean when you say “Christian”?

Twelve for 2012 (2)

[ ... continued from here]

Inherently, the modus operandi of quasi-prophetic, interrogatory verbalization runs counter to long-practiced norms — and to a good many beliefs tenaciously held by the masses.  For this disequilibrious endeavor I will make no apology, but if I ever seem to be fighting the individual’s independent, sincere pursuit of Almighty God and His eternal kingdom, I sit ready to be corrected.

In my last post, I listed an initial, six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church of the 21^st century, if I had the ability.  These had to do with sects and structures, the clergy role, and scriptural moorings.  The ramifications of some of these items are broad, and I’m fully aware of the audacity of some of them.  In order to be clear about my human fallibility, I am presenting my list of twelve items in half-twelve lists of six, the “number of man.”  The total number — a nice, round, “biblical” one — has more reference to the current calendar year than to biblical completion:  here, although I touch on several matters I consider crucial, I make no claim to being exhaustive.

Below, then, is the second group of six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church, if I had the ability.  These six concern (1-2) relational dynamics, (3-4) concepts of worship and of the Christian gathering, and (5-6) understandings of beginnings and continuations.

1. create small groups and other home gatherings where they do not already exist
2. inject a more apt understanding of the assembly (for starters, not thinking of it as a “service”)
3. infuse a deeper understanding of the nature and extents of worship — neither a) considering it to be singing or as confined to a musical style preference (e.g., so-called “worship music”), nor b) superimposing liturgical notions of “service,” thus obscuring worship
4. balance reverence with familial informality — establishing a patently respectful, informal (although not a casual) approach to worship and other church activities
5. cause an acceptance of the biblical place of the believer’s immersion in clothing oneself with Jesus as Savior — thus identifying fully with His death, burial, and resurrection (as a result, eradicating residual trust in such items as infant sprinkling, the incantational “sinner’s prayer,” and institutional church affiliation)
6. instill a solid, long-lasting, far-reaching concept and practice of discipleship, as opposed to false security in hereditary church “membership”

Not all the twelve items (the ones above, plus the last six) are of equal importance, but they are all important to me.  They don’t represent the gamut of need within Christendom; there are other areas that need attention, as well.  I don’t claim to be all that circumspect or insightful — only ardent for pure Christianity where I find its current iteration tainted.

While the list of twelve items may contract or expand with the passing years, I have given these enough thought, through enough time, that I expect them to remain with me, to some extent, until I die — or until the Son returns to claim His own.  I do not believe m/any of the items will ever come to pass, in any appreciable measure.  In the circles in which I have influence, however, God giving me life and influence, I am resolved to encourage the absorption of these and other aspects of biblically well-founded Christianity.

Twelve for 2012 (1)

Caveat lector:  Despite my deep-and-wide-spreading neo-protestant roots, I don’t want to be a tree made of hard wood that never sways with the refreshing breezes of God’s Spirit.

I do intentionally strike a posture of challenge toward any nominally Christian element that seems not to emanate from scripture.  Plus, I’m relatively comfortable with speaking sincerely, earnestly, even prophetically (although NOT miraculously so! – I claim no special revelation, only attentiveness to the witness of God’s inspired spokesmen of old) for God and for pure Christianity.

The M.O. of quasi-prophetic, interrogatory speech necessarily counters long-practiced norms, and a good many beliefs tenaciously held by the masses.  [To friends and acquaintances who tolerate and/or love me anyway most of the time:  is this introductory elaboration helping to illuminate?]  I make no apology for speaking against cults, various human hierarchies, and merely tradition-based denominational tenets, but if I ever seem to be battling the individual’s sincere, independent pursuit of Almighty God and His kingdom, I stand ready to be corrected.

Several months ago, I was led to think anew about the tone of some of my blogposts—thus the verbal groundwork laid above.  I had actually started this piece before the beginning of 2012 but was unsure about it.  I’m still unsure about the thrust of a few items.  Although some question remains about certain extents, my reluctance stems more from insecurity over the reception of what I’ll be saying.

We’re now almost finished with 2012.  Although originally planned for 1/1/12, this post is now scheduled to be broadcast at 12:12 on 12/12/12.  Nice number, huh?  The ramifications of some of the items below are surely broad, and I don’t present them, deluded, as “gospel.”  I’m fully aware of the audacity of some of them.  In order to frame them clearly as humanly fallible, I’ll now present these items in half-twelve lists of six, the “number of man.”

I would like to present these somewhat incendiary thoughts with a special invitation for feedback.  Responses I receive may be used in, or as, follow-up posts, so if you write privately, please confirm whether you want to remain anonymous if quoted.  Perhaps we can have some valuable discussions—whether openly on the blog or on the backchannels.

Here, then, are the first six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church of the 21^st century, if I had the ability.

If I could, I would

1. instantiate exegetical Bible study methods into every Christian church
2. morph sermons, with their “points” and jokes and poems, into studies with scriptural exegesis at their core
3. abolish the “pastor/minister” role altogether — this role (not to mention its attendant hierarchies) is an unknown entity in New Testament writings, and although many of these individuals clearly do good in our day, the harm inherent in the position and its ramifications is not insignificant; perpetuation of the institution is contra-indicated, although many of the persons currently in such positions could serve well in other roles
4. inculcate the principle of the Bible as “the only rule for faith and practice” — and this would necessitate a) ridding ourselves of superimposed creeds and “faith statements,” and b) abandoning residual loyalties to articulate, more or less charismatic non-specially-inspired personages, whether past or present
5. eradicate all traces of denominational pride and loyalty (if not all evidence of denominations, period)
6. sell most of the church buildings in the country, leaving only the ones used several days a week for Kingdom business and neighborhood service

To be continued . . . my next post will list the remaining six items. . . .

Kauflin — a bit of this, a bit of that

This post will consist of a few bits of critique of Bob Kauflin’s notes from his address “THE WORSHIP LEADER AND JESUS CHRIST” at the Doxology and Theology conference in Frisco, TX, and the Christian Musicians Summit in Seattle, WA.  Please know, before I begin, that I have great respect for Bob Kauflin’s songwriting, his heart and sincerity of devotion.

Kauflin’s first assertion:

“The God of the Bible is Triune, Father, Son, and Spirit”

I prefer to say, for example, that the God of the Bible is almighty, majestic, and beyond description.  Just He is only sort-of “He,” He is only sort-of “three.”  (He actually transcends gender; He also transcends number, and this “triunity” is more a human formulation than a biblical one.)

Kauflin follows up with this:

“We worship all three persons of the Trinity as God.”

While he is correct for a large number of Christian worshippers today, I have found no biblical example of worship of the Spirit per se.

He continues,

“We can’t simply interchange the names of the Father, Son, and Spirit in our songs, or necessarily say the same things to each one.”

And in this, Kauflin is right on.  Next, he comments,

“The Father is delighted and glorified when we honor his Son.”

The proof-text which follows is “And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!’” (Lk. 9:35)  Logically speaking, I would have to agree that the Father is delighted when we honor Jesus, but I don’t know that there is a biblical passage or principle from which I can draw this.  In reading the gospel accounts of this event, one could not necessarily infer worship from the Father’s message.  Moreover, honor, as Kauflin exhorts, might or might not come with hearing.  What the texts say is that the Father said to listen to the Son; the intent might have included worship, but probably dealt more directly with hearing Jesus over the prophets “seen” at the transfiguration, and/or hearing Jesus’ teaching, in general.

Kauflin’s second major section begins with the statement “Jesus is the leader of our worship.”  Hmm.  Conceptually, Jesus is central, but to suggest that “He is the leader of our worship” in these times is tantamount to projecting a PowerPoint slide of a Photoshopped Jesus of Galilee, holding a microphone and playing a Roland RD-600 digital piano.  ’Nuff said.

“It’s not our perfect offerings that make our worship pleasing to God, but the perfect Christ.”

Yes, Bob, you are so right on this one.

“Our worship is made one by Jesus.”

I’m not sure what this means, even in the context of Kauflin’s notes.  The use of Ephesians 2:14-16 (“For He himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility . . .”) is contextless and doesn’t really illuminate anything since most of us aren’t dealing directly with Jewish and Gentile division these days.

Kauflin does share some worthwhile lists — all apt expressions that draw us to Jesus:

The person of Jesus (Heb. 1:1-4; Col. 1:15-19)

1. Radiance of the glory of God
2. exact imprint of God’s nature
3. image of the invisible God
4. superior to angels
5. firstborn of all creation
6. has all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
7. heir of all things
8. existed before all things
9. head of the church
10. fully God, fully man
11. King of kings, Lord of lords

The works of Jesus

1. created all things
2. upholds the universe by his word, took on flesh
3. obeyed his Father perfectly
4. made purification for sins
5. became sin for us
6. absorbed God’s wrath in our place
7. rose from the dead
8. ascended to his Father’s right hand
9. intercedes for his people
10. is coming back to destroy death, mete out justice, and live with his bride forever

MIscellaneous Kauflin thoughts and quotations:

We need to find, write, and sing more songs that spell out who Jesus is and what He has done (“In Christ Alone,” “Glorious Day,” “It is Finished,” “The Perfect Wisdom of Our God,” “Glorious Christ”).

Jesus should be bigger in our minds and hearts after we meet to sing his praise.

We need to help our people move beyond catch phrases and Christianese to think deeply about the glory of Christ.

And finally, a quote Kauflin shared from one Sinclair Ferguson:

“The evangelical orientation is inward and subjective.  We are far better at looking inward than we are looking outward.  We need to expend our energies admiring, exploring, expositing, and extolling Jesus Christ.”

Thank you, Bob Kauflin, for helping us think (and rethink) biblical, Christ-centered worship.  Not everything you say is on target or justifiable from a biblical standpoint, but your sincere devotion is unquestioned.

Proskuneo and latreian (4)

This post is the 4th (and probably the last, for a while) in a series about worship and service.  Proskuneo and latreian are two key biblical words (Greek antecedents) that can aid our understanding.

A new friend has recently commented, suggesting that Jesus’ depiction of worship in spirit and truth (John 4) is not exactly a positive highlighting, viewed through New-Covenant lenses.  If I’m reading him correctly, he believes that the inner faith-response to the singular act of Jesus on the cross constitutes the only “worship” indicated under the New Covenant.  I’ve never heard this shading before but have been thinking about it.

It appears to me that Jesus, as reported by John, was calling the woman to something a) not bound by location and b) genuine, true.  Both aspects may stand in contrast to Jewish worship of the time, but especially so in the first case.  Since as a Samaritan she was not exactly in the “in” crowd, perhaps Jesus was suggesting to her, by saying “in spirit,” that she could worship despite her lack of Jewish access to the temple.  This worship would not consist in temple service or in Jerusalem at all.  It would be, said He, homage-communication of the spirit, and it would be true — not feigned or dissociated from reality.

The genuine/authentic/true component of Jesus’ statement could also be conceived of as contrasting with then-current Jewish corruptions.  I’m not saying this is THE way to read it — only one possible way to read it.  Subjunctively stated, then, it would sound something like this:

“Woman, your worship doesn’t have to be like that of the Jews:  it could now exist regardless of Jerusalem, and could be engaged in more authentically than is typical, in the midst of the Jewish stuff these days.”

(Aside:  no matter whether I’m on target here, or how much any reader might disagree with me, we must all categorically reject the idea that the “in truth” part of the phrasing has anything directly to do with the CofC’s [or any other group's] views on “correct” acts in the church assembly.  Not that “correctness” isn’t important, but this text has nothing to do with it.)

There’s really not much about worship in the gospels or the letters.  I take it that the early Christians just worshipped and didn’t find the need to write about it so much, but I acknowledge that it’s logically possible for worship to have been less a priority in, or almost absent from, Christian gatherings.  Possible, but not likely, I’d say.

On the horizontal, “priestly service” side, Hebrews certainly seems to corroborate that Jesus’ sacrifice is the true, central replacement for the latreuo or leitourgeia of the Old Covenant.  (No more animal sacrifices!  Jesus — once and for all!)  But this unique honoring of our Lord’s offering doesn’t negate the offering of ourselves described in Rom. 12.  Hebrews passages — taken separately or conjoined with the entire New Covenant corpus — do also place Jesus at the core, philosophically and theologically.

Connections with 1st-century synagogue practices have been used to justify some elements of Christian worship that I don’t find valid in the New Covenant.  Coincidentally, I’ve just reviewed an issue of Worship Leader magazine in which so many assumptions are made along the lines of the “history of Christian worship” that I couldn’t keep up with my own question marks in the margins.  It’s hard to trust the thinking of public leaders and venues when so few seem to be able to distinguish between biblically implied/suggested/commanded things and historically, traditionally practiced ones.

As an example:  there is no biblical blueprint for a corporate assembly, despite the supposed plan propagated by, e.g., the late guru Robert Webber.  According to him and many others, the “authorized way” is something along these lines:

1 – gathering in (or the call into) the outer courts

2 – hearing the Word in scripture and sermon

3 – responding to the word

4 – going out to bear witness

I find no such pattern stated in scripture; to infer this pattern is to superimpose mankind’s tradition.  In any event, almost paradoxically, the above layout seems to emphasize acts that are not, strictly speaking, worship.  The subject treated seems to be “the service,” as developed by institutional Christianity, ant not worship per se.  The four-point structure deals more with overall conceptions for Christian responses and the living of life.  It’s not wrong to use such a pattern for a corporate so-called “service,” but it smacks of the Old Covenant to legislate said pattern.

To any who think worship is contra-indicated in NC scripture (younger believers, these people do exist, and many of them are quite sincere), I would say this:  I don’t see that vertical worship communication (the proskuneo variety) was snuffed out with the cross.  It further seems that some expressions of, e.g., the Psalms are enduring, not obsolete.  Furthermore, doxologies such as those found in Philippians 2, Ephesians 1, and 1 Timothy 1 strongly suggest that first-century Christians were giving vertical, reverent, adoring attention to the Christ.  In addition, the example of the woman of Luke 7:36 appears as a striking example of a very literal act of spontaneous worship (proskuneo is, roughly, bowing and “kissing toward”) honored by Jesus.  Although shedding tears and wiping one’s feet with long hair should not be viewed a paradigm for all time, it is certainly presented positively in the narrative.  If this example were to be scoffed at, I would think Jesus, or Luke (ca. 40 years later) would have framed the woman’s action negatively.

In sum, at this juncture, I believe proskuneo is both assumed and indicated under the New Covenant.  I believe the same about latreia(n).  One is vertical, involving reverent homage shown to a greater being; the other is horizontal, effectively substituting service acts toward others for Old-Covenant animal sacrifices and various Levitical acts.  While there is certainly a spiritual connection between the two (proskuneo and latreian), the concepts are distinct, and we do a disservice to both the ideas of worship and service by amalgamating them.  This is obviously an oversimplification, but I trust that it helpfully delineates.

Below are links to some previous posts on worship and/or service.  Especially if some of the above is muddy, I would invite you to read past essays on related topics, and comment where you find me off-track (or where you agree).

Synagogue Worship as Model

Priorities (Hebrews 13)

Worship and Service: the Worlds of Awe and Anxiety

A Paramount Worship Text — John 4

Truly

Truly and Spiritually

Worship – Ritual v. Relationship

Singular allegiance

It is inappropriate, in a Christian assembly, to sing the praises of military sacrifice and of American freedoms.  It is inappropriate on Veterans Day and on every other day of the year.

Among the reasons for gathering as Christian believers is to remember and honor the sacrifice of Jesus, the Messiah.  His ultimate sacrifice is the one that merits attention.  No one else’s matters, in comparison.  Today, though, the precious communion of the saints, in at least one place, was severed by thoughtless, even blasphemous comparison to the Lord Jesus’ atoning death.

Many things have upset me during Christian assemblies in my years on this planet.  Most Sundays in my adult life, in fact, something said or done has run contrary to what I find supported by scripture and/or logic.  In other words, many matters have displeased or upset me, but I can’t recall any that have aroused my ire like this one today.  I guess it caught me off guard, but there was no way I could stay in this assembly in which we were a) exhorted to honor the sacrifice of our veterans and b) treated to a prayer that thanks God for the same.  This thinking has no verbalized place in church gatherings at all — and certainly not in prayer to the Almighty God who is above every political entity.

I am indignant at the lack of discernment.  So many souls move blithely through American life, with their thinking all askew, assuming that

Christian = Republican = Militarily Involved/Supportive

No.  Not at all.

While I would typically sleep on a topic that fires me up, not so today.  Long after the emotion has subsided, the scruples, which are well founded, will remain.  (Read about the core of the good news in 1Cor 15.  Read about the death of Jesus toward the end of Mark 9 and 10 and tell me a military death, no matter how sacrificial or gruesome or untimely, has anything to do with the death of the Lord.  Read about identifying with Jesus’ death in Romans 6.  And read 2 Tim 2:4 and tell me what the “army” is — for the soldier of whom Paul writes, metaphorically.)

Different opinions on matters such as this may coexist.  Coexistence must not lead to the public preaching of one side “in church,” however.  It does not maintain the Spirit’s unity to force one set of unsupported opinions on the entire congregation.  Wisdom ought to realize that obvious displays of American patriotism are not only inappropriate, but they have the potential to be divisive.  To call attention, during a Christian Assembly, to the giving of life for a political or military cause is as heartbreaking as it is shocking.

Universal church, you should strike Veterans Day and Memorial Day from the internal church calendars.  (Until the day of fruition, though, I will need to watch the calendar more closely for my family, so we can avoid pretty much all U.S. churches on these days.)

The rest of the country may fly its flags and honor veterans, and that is to be expected.  It doesn’t bother me in the slightest for a private American citizen to have a flag flying or a yellow ribbon tied, or for an American Walmart to have a veterans’ organization doing a fundraiser out in front.  But not the church — not the group that is called out of this world.  Oh, and lest we forget, not all of the world is American.

As Christians who are also American citizens secondarily, we must pledge allegiance only to the Lamb.

An individual I once worked with briefly, and whom I have grown to respect, once said this:

I grew weary long ago of those who love usurping God-time with praise for their country and the illusion of this world’s freedoms. I think they insult both God and country: God by taking away from His worship and country because they don’t want the inconvenience of having to schedule separate time to honor their country. “Isn’t it so much simpler since we’re all here together anyway to just go ahead and celebrate our nation?”

People who are so fond of praising and serving “God and country” do not comprehend that our God is a jealous God.  – Harold Arnett

Liberty and sibling disagreement (2)

In this follow-up from my last post, I’m offering a little more detail, post-conversation . . .

Joe’s side of the “debate”
If I might presume to put more words in his mouth, based on what I’ve seen and heard from others, the significant question is this:  Why would a Christian not stand up to be heard?  We must take action for the sake of our earthly nation, and Christians’ voices should be strong and confident on moral issues.  Our country is heading down a bad path, and it is up to Christians to be active in the political process that affects lives.

My side
From my side, the significant question is this:  Why would a Christian get involved?  Speaking both practically and spiritually/biblically, I see little rational motivation for political activity, and even less hint of biblical basis for the same.  Imperatives in this area are simply non-existent.  Political activity, as we think of it today, is unknown to the Bible; in view of this scriptural silence, involvement in civic affairs must be seen as a liberty, not as a right or responsibility.  Our responsibilities as Christians must be worked out with the eternal Kingdom in view — the Kingdom in which resides our primary citizenship.  Kingdom purposes supersede the affairs of temporal, global governments.

 

Essentially, Joe thinks my values and priorities are skewed in the area of political thought and activity, and I think his are just as skewed.  I often feel incredulous when confronted with others’ interests and energies around politics.  How could you think that?  Why do you do that?  Don’t you get it? I ask, inside myself.  On the other hand, Joe and the huge majority of believers ask, inside themselves, How could you be so apathetic?  Why do you not do that?  Don’t you get it?

Either Joe or I may be more right than the other, or we may both be wrong.  In the end, though, his final words are on target:

“10,000 years from now our differences won’t matter.”  

So be it.  And in the meantime, we must allow for disagreement on disputable matters such as this one.  Thank you, Joe, for your good heart and graciousness.  When people act and dialogue as you do, it is easier for weaker characters such as myself to act better, and I am persuaded that dialogues such as ours — working through some disagreements in an area of Christian liberty — are pleasing to the Lord.

~ ~ ~

In necessariis unitas,

In dubiis libertas,

In omnibus autem caritas

 

(In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.)

The slogan above is attributed to Augustine (4^th-5^th centuries A.D.); appropriated by Hoffmann von Fallersleben (1852); reappropriated by Isaac Errett and others connected with the frontier American Restoration Movement (a/k/a Stone-Campbell Movement) in the later nineteenth century.

Now, another bit, via the ARM, on the topic at hand.  This comes from Richard T. Hughes:  Reviving the Ancient Faith:  The Story of Churches of Christ in America, p. 109:

If [Barton W.] Stone had a creed, he surely expressed it in 1841 when admonished his readers that “you must not mind earthly things, nor set your affections on them — not to be conformed to the world. . . .  Here you have no abiding place, but are as strangers and pilgrims seeking a better country.”

For more on the so-called apocalyptic worldview, read more about Barton W. Stone than about Alexander Campbell, and continue following thoughts, teachings, and philosophies through David Lipscomb, Tolbert Fanning, and Andy T. Ritchie, Jr.  Once upon a blog, I wrote a six-part series on Government and Christian.  If interested, please go here for a first serving, or perhaps here.  At this point, there are 33 posts on this blog that fall in the category “Government and Christian,” to some extent.  I think this topic is of some importance, clearly, but I don’t want it to get more attention than it deserves.]

Liberty and sibling disagreement

This is a tale with deux raisons d’etre (two reasons for being).  First, it is about how to disagree with a fellow Christian.  Second, it amounts to a sort of primer on my “take” on the relationship of human government and Christianity.

Toward two ends, then, I offer the following transcript of pertinent lines from e-mails between a nearby brother and me.  I mainly want to display my friend Joe’s gracious attitude, and to present our interchanges as constituting a pretty good example of how to disagree with a Christian brother or sister.  Having messed up more such communications in the past than I care to think about, I was so relieved as this particular conversation progressed.  The communication took more time than I had last week, but it was worth it, and Joe was not only a good sparring partner, but also a good example of how to close the conversation gently and lovingly.  I appreciate him for this and other things.

Below are the pertinent portions of our six-part interchange:

One

(From Joe to me and others)

> *Dear brothers & sisters,*
>
> Please take 12-minutes and listen to one of the most courageous
> brothers I’ve ever heard.
>
> Then ask God what He wants you to do with this.
>
> Very respectfully,
>
> *Joe *
>
> This link below of a pastor sharing his heart at the national press
> club in DC is a courageous portrayal of where our country is and
> includes challenges to the body that I think is worth our attention
> (12 minutes no notes, all heart for Christ and passion for our
> nation)  ……

———————————-

TWO

(From me)

Joe, good to hear from you.   Always nice to be reminded of you and your group’s warmth toward us.

[snip]

P.S. I pick up that we probably disagree somewhat about the relationship of country and Christian, but that’s OK — whichever one of us is off-base will surely be taken care of by grace.  :-)  Personally, I don’t think we have any good options for president, and I’m not sure which is less desirable.  But the Kingdom is forever — praise Him!

———————————-

THREE

Brian, great to hear from you and all the blessings God is surrounding you with.

Do you know who ________  is?  He is a theologian and excellent Bible teacher. One of my favorite texts other than the Bible itself is ______________  by ____________ .  He has recently written a new book on Politics and the Bible and he has also put together a 4 page summary of the book’s content. His intent is to compare what he calls the conservative view with the liberal view.  I was amazed at his clarity and the accuracy of his presentation.

While you are completely correct that neither man running for President is a great choice, the platforms of the parties have never been more divergent.  It seems to me that we need to do all we can to know the truth, teach the truth, and to let people know the different ideas that are being promoted and the likely direction they will lead.

[snipped scripture used as proof-text :-)   ]

You are a dear friend and I don’t ask you to consider this to annoy or frustrate you in any way.

Thank you for your consideration & prayers about this important topic.

By His Grace,
Joe

———————————-

FOUR

Joe,

I can’t be sure exactly why I had the impulse to write you that P.S.  It probably wasn’t a good idea, I think the “annoyance” factor actually runs in the other direction.  Thank you for sharing your heart, and I apologize for spiritually perturbing you!

There are areas in which I know I am in a minority, and this is one of them.  I am a conscientious non-participant in government (and am a conscientious objector terms of military service).   In other words, it is not laziness that keeps me out of the process; it is biblically based conscience.  This area of government/Christian is a strange one for me — it is simultaneously a) very important and b) fairly easily seen as non-essential.  By that, I mean that it’s pretty easy for me to be charitable in my heart towards you and the many others who don’t see this as I do (even though the issue is very important to “both sides”).  I do understand the inclination to be concerned for the choices of our political nation.  I would ask for your charity, as well, though:  since you seem passionate about the need to listen and act politically, please know that I am genuinely convicted otherwise and do not take these things lightly or apathetically.

On most moral/social issues, I would probably be more closely aligned with Gov. Romney’s positions than with Pres. Obama’s.  Yet my worldview relegates the political to the temporal, i.e., the non-eternal.  This amounts to a message of hope for me — maybe especially when the options are not good in this life!  I sincerely hope you can appreciate my position here, although I do not expect you to change any more than I expect to change. . . .

His above all,

Brian

———————————-

FIVE

Brian,

I wish I was in front of you as I’d love to give you a big hug and tell you face to face how much I love you and respect your position.  It is clear that you are a ‘thinker’ and have arrived at your position from years of thought and prayer – and as a result I will happily agree to disagree with you on this.

10,000 years from now our differences won’t matter when we bump into each other worshipping our creator together.

By His Grace,

Joe

———————————-

SIX

I’m grateful for your reply, Joe.  Thank you so much for your charity.  This was not easy for either of us!  [snip]

———————————-

In my next post, I’ll offer a little more detail and opinion, post-conversation. . . .

Old and new (Inconsistencies, pt 2)

A longtime reader queries, referring to a subpoint from my last post on “Inconsistencies,”

So this post isn’t about “Sabbath,” and yet the statement is still there.  I see your reasoning in not calling it “Sabbath,” but I’ve been pretty convicted about the whole rest/setting apart thing in the past few years.  I don’t have a great list of reasons to support it right now, but how can you justify that being the *only* one of the 10 commandments we’re not expected to follow?

What a devoted question — one I’m not qualified to answer — but one I think deserves more consideration, so here are some thoughts.

Hundreds of books, if not thousands, have been written on one or more of the “10 Commandments.”  I would bet, moreover, that hundreds of books have been written that focus on the fulfillment of the Commandments in the New Covenant.

I’m no expert in this area, but I’ve been conditioned to see spiritually-new-covenant applications of physical Old Testament realities.  Through the years, I’ve grown more convinced that this is generally the right track to be on with respect to the relationship of the “Old” and the “New.”  Take, for example, ancient wars involving the Hebrews.  Regardless of views on geopolitics, governments, and the use of military force, no sane Christian would take the accounts of Hebrews bludgeoning Canaanites and Amorites as justification for ganging up & killing opposing ethno-religious or political factions today.  The “takeaway’ here is that some things in the OC times aren’t applicable under the NC.  But what do we do with this?

In this case, some of the apocalyptic language of Revelation (and maybe Ezekiel and Daniel) illuminates the scenario, at least for me:  the language of obliterative war authorized by God under Joshua, the judges, the kings, etc., finds its fulfillment in the ultimate victory of God over the spiritually opposing powers.  See Rev. 15, 16, and especially 12:7ff.

There are scores of Hebrews mini-laws that no one thinks twice about.  If we are subject to the 10 Commandments per se, why wouldn’t we be subject to prohibitions around yeast and pork and hyssop and beards?  Isn’t it either the whole law or none of it?

Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets, according to the evangelist.  Although it’s “proof-texty” of me to pull out Matt. 22:40 and Matt. 5:17 to prove a point, I think fulfillment of Jewish types is close enough to the heart of this particular gospel that it’s not out of line to highlight the ideas of His having fulfilled. subsumed, and summarized the “Old.”

So, Sabbath as a law to be enjoined on Christians?  I think not, as such, but the larger question about the “Ten Commandments” must be answered to the satisfaction of each believer.  Could it be that none of the Commandments, in themselves, are pertinent anymore?  And, more important, could it be that exemplary principles of Jesus such as loving neighbors and “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he” and treating others as we want to be treated gloriously, effectively trump Old-Law rules such as not killing and not committing adultery and not coveting?

I don’t know that it would be possible to articulate fully a NC fulfillment of each OC commandment.  That exercise, though, might be less than necessary, in full view of the over-arching principles of Jesus — principles that cover all of living without need for appealing to a Jewish commandment.

In the case of the old Sabbath law — and I do agree that it’s important to rest — one thing that comes to mind is the notion of doing everything for God’s glorification.  Our human need for rest and recuperation would seem to relate to better potential in glorifying Him.  In addition, there is that all-surpassing thought of being created in God’s image, and after all, He is said to have “rested.”  I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to rest, or even to have regular patterns of rest, but to suggest that Sabbath, as such, was transferred a) to the New Covenant and b) to Sunday is simply inaccurate.

Your phrasing “setting apart” piques my deeper thinking more than the rest aspect.  I know I could do better with dedicating times, including times of private and public worship.

P.S.  This whole topical area appears to constitute a four-lane intersection with the text of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, I think.