This homily by N. T. Wright delivered to the students at Wheaton College should resonate quite well with us from a Stoned-Campbell background. We need to be reminded that unity is hardly a marginal thought in the New Testament!
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Last night (Oct 27, 2010) I received an inquiry about a discussion that took place ages ago on the Old Gospel Advocate Message Board (in 2001!!). The Crux of the Matter (Childers, Foster & Reese) had recently been published and the Spiritual Sword had dedicated an issue to it. Several on the message board had been tagged to interact with various articles. As I recall Chuck Dorsey was the ramrod of the affair. I ended up interacting with articles by Alan Highers, William Woodson and Earl Edwards. I have not thought about that board in a LONG time. I had to go digging to find this stuff. I have posted this piece unaltered. If I had to do it over again I know I'd say some things very differently. But on the whole I still agree with me. LOL! So here you go ...
Review of Alan Highers, "The Real Crux of the Matter" Spiritual Sword 33 (October 2001),1-4
Since Chuck Dorsey has given me the responsibility of being the lead review of the October Spiritual Sword I will try especially hard to set a Christlike tone for the discussion. My task is to review the editorial by Brother Alan Highers entitled "The REAL Crux of the Matter."
I wish first, however, to call attention to that remarkable little booklet by Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (InterVarsity Press, 1970), that powerfully and convincingly calls for a unity of love between brothers and sisters in Christ. When brothers disagree, Schaeffer writes, it is even more important to demonstrate the love of Christ VISIBLY. Our disagreement should send us first to our knees in prayer and then to our knees before the Cross. We should, "spend time upon my knees asking the Holy Spirit, asking Christ, to do his work through me ... that I ... show love even in this larger difference." (Schaeffer, p.27). It is my prayer that these discussions do not descend into hotbeds of ugliness rather we all display the "mark of the Christian." That does not mean we cannot disagree just a call to season our speech with salt -- and prayer.
I. Are "We" Coextensive with the First Century Church?
Brother Highers begins his "review" by quoting from Wineskins purpose statement:
"Our background and commitment is to the Church of Christ that was born of the American Restoration Movement. Our goal is to move that group closer to the church of Christ revealed in Scripture." (Highers, p. 1).
It should be pointed out that the authors of CRUX also refer to this statement pointing out that it was controversial with some of our brethren. In citing William Woodson, the authors note,
"But for Woodson, the one essential error that permeated all the others is the change agents' agenda to define the 'church of Christ' as just another denomination among denominations. Referring to the purpose statement of Wineskins magazine, Woodson accuses change agents of redefining the church." (Crux, p. 142).
It should be pointed out that the authors of CRUX do not comment on Woodson's statement either pro or con. They simply acknowledge the criticism.
Returning to Higher's (and Woodson's) criticism one is forced to ask if Brother Higher's imagines that the Churches of Christ that exist in the USA are coextensive with the Church of God revealed in the NT? Is our brotherhood THE universal church? It would seem to me that is the only alternative to Higher's criticism. It seems to me that Brother Higher's does indeed think the Churches of Christ are the universal church. But I think it is classic equivocation to say that "we" are coextensive with the First Century Church.
It is obvious with a moments reflection, though, that "we" are NOT coextensive with
the Church of the NT. Just briefly here are a few items that distinguish "us" from ""them":
1) The Church of the NT was charismatic, Are "we"?
2) The Church of the NT was commanded not to forbid prophecy, Do "we"?
3) The Church of the NT enrolled' widows for care taking, Do "we"?
4) The Church of the NT widows washed the saints feet, Do "ours"?
5) The Church of the NT believed in the empowering Spirit within each Christian, Do
"we"?
6) The Church of the NT proclaimed one is saved by faith in Christ apart from works, Do
"we"?
7) The Church of the NT recognized the difference between Gospel and Doctrine, Do "we"?
8) The Church of the NT allowed solos, Do "we"?
9) The Church of the NT was commanded to be "eager" to prophecy, Are "we"?
10) The Church of the NT recognized that Christ himself was the pattern for divine life, Do "we"?
11) The Church of the NT ....
I could extend my list but I need not. The point is there are large discontinuities, parts of "NT Christianity" that "we" do not practice, and in fact do not WANT to. I recall reading from Everett Ferguson once that the best we can do is be SECOND Century Christians -- perhaps he was more correct than what we want or care to admit.
A second point that must be emphasized (at least in my mind) that the very claim by Highers that "we" are coextensive with the Church of God, that "we" and "we" alone are people of God is the height of sectarianism (in my opinion) and a complete denial of the Movement to pursue nondenominational Christianity.
There was in fact a historical Movement that is variously called the "American Restoration Movement," or the "Stone-Campbell Movement," that the Churches of Christ that dot the American landscape did come out of. This cannot be denied historically -- to do so is to be untrue and historically blind.
This group of folks, I do not deny but affirm, never intended to become a denomination, sect or anything else. They originally saw themselves as a movement WITHIN the Church of God, to reform her and restore two key biblical themes: Unity and Evangelistic Missions. That they denied being THE Church of God (much less being the ONLY Christians) is plainly evident to all who spend time with them. Thomas Campbell defined the church as,
"That the Church of Christ [intended here as the universal Church of God] upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of ALL those in EVERY place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians" (Declaration and Address, p. 44).
There were those from time to time who sought to sectarianize the Plea but most of the representative men resisted such apostasy. This sad tendency was noted by an
anonymous writer in the Millennial Harbinger in 1864. This writer laments,
"But now -- we have become a `Religious Body.' We have our shibboleth, our fixed principles, and there is danger lest we, too, shall become infatuated with the Romish conceit of infallibility, against which we said so much in those early pioneer days, which the veterans among us have so much reason to remember." (Senex, "Free Discussion," MH, March, 1864, p. 170).
One can, as well as a people can, become what Barton Stone warned about "anti¬sectarian sectarians." This happens when we begin to think of ourselves as the only honest people reading Scripture, or the only ones without our shared fallenness, or that our interpretations are beyond question -- or that we are the only ones who are in fact Christians. Stone's warning is worth repeating in full,
"The scriptures will never keep together in union, and fellowship members not in the spirit of the scriptures, which spirit is love, peace, unity, forbearance, and cheerful obedience. This is the spirit of the great Head of the body. I blush for my fellows, who hold up the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship; who plead for union of all Christians; yet refuse fellowship with such as dissent from their notions. Vain men! Their zeal is not according to knowledge, nor is their spirit that of Christ. Their is a day not far ahead which will declare it. Such anti-sectarian sectarians are doing more mischief to the cause, and advancement of truth, the unity of Christians, and the salvation of the world, than all the skeptics in the world. In fact, they make skeptics." (Stone, "Remarks," Christian Messenger, August 1835, p. 180).
One last quote about whether "we" constitute all the people of God. F. D. Srygley wrote a wonderful book on The New Testament Church. He responded to the sectarian mind set that was developing on the Texas frontier in the Firm Foundation. The FF had taken exception to Srygley's denial that "we-as-a-people" ARE the people of God. He concluded with this "I am beginning to think "we-as-a-people" are very much like other folks, as a people, anyhow. I know a man who has a way of saying some people have as much human nature in them as anybody, and I halfway believe it." (NT, Church, p. 86).
I like the grasp Campbell had of the nondenominational concept as is plainly evident in his "Letter to an Independent Baptist," and it speaks directly to our situation,
"Dear sir, this plan of our own nest, and fluttering over our own brood; of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the "elect few' who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated pharisaism. The old Pharisees were but babes in comparison to the modern; and the longer I live, and the more I reflect upon God and man -- heaven and earth -- the Bible and the world -- the Redeemer and his Church -- the more I am assured that all sectarianism is the offspring of hell ... To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle; to associate with a few units, tens or hundreds, as the pure church, as the elect, is real Protestant monkery, it is evangelical pharisaism." (Christian Baptist, "Letter to an Independent Baptist, p. 238)
One does not have embrace "denominationalism" or "sectarianism," to become either one.
II. Is there "Salvation" Outside the Church?
What has just been said leads me to examine Highers charge that the Authors of CRUX claim "Over and over, . . . there is salvation outside the church." (p.3). Again this goes back to what was said above and again, I believe, Highers equivocates. The writers never once suggest that there is salvation outside the Church of God one reads about in the NT. Once again Highers can only maintain his criticism if he believes the Churches of Christ constitute the universal church of God. But the writers deny that the Restoration Movement IS the Church of God in its totality -- I agree with them. The writers maintain (just as Campbell, Stone, Scott, Lipscomb, Kurfees, Srygley, Larimore, Moser, etc, etc.) that we are Christians only not the only Christians. I do not think that Highers could prove in any court of law (since he is a lawyer) that his charge is a true one. The authors advocate for a firm and gracious attempt to place the doctrine of baptism before our religious friends. We do not need to paganize them before we can communicate our understanding of baptism to them. The authors state,
"We are convinced that we must not dilute our insistence on New Testament baptism. But we are also convinced that we cannot allow our resolute stance on this issue to keep us isolated from the kinds of godly people Campbell described in his articles on baptism" (Crux, p.124).
"Regardless of what some have accused us of in the past, Churches of Christ need to emphasize, explore, and teach more about baptism, not less. But we cannot do it in an isolated, abrasive, and sectarian manner as we sometimes have." (Crux p.125).
From my perspective it is hard to deny that we have been, at times, abrasive and sectarian about baptism. I believe a fine example of the kind of irenic placement of our perspective in the world of ideas is Everett Ferguson's The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Eerdmans, 1996). Ferguson has been well reviewed and received by denominational scholars across the board -- INCLUDING THE BAPTISTS, (with a W.R. Estep, a Baptist prof at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, even promoting the book!!). One will not find the same reception for any of our other authors. Further I think that what the authors recognize, but Highers denies, is there are in fact levels of fellowship (I guess LaGard Smith and his Five-Fold level is a good example of what is being discussed. Foster gave LaGard's book a positive review in Christian Chronicle).
III. The Issue of the CORE Gospel?
Highers believes that because the authors believe in a Core Gospel or Core Hermeneutic. He cites pp. 169-170 and I will also quote it,
"Interpretations connected to the core Gospel that heal relationships and enable the church to work, and worship well will be confirmed. Those that damage the core, blocking the church's mission or disrupting its priorities, must be considered flawed, no matter what method produced them or how logical they seem."
Highers is very critical of this statement, somehow this statement "perverts the gospel
and makes it of no effect" (Highers, p. 2). I personally am not clear as to why that is so. Then Brother Highers maintains that Childers, Foster and Reese do not explain "who" is to determine and "how" such determinations are to be made. He says "it is apparent that the process is a subjective one -- not an objective one based upon scriptural exegesis and `logical' deduction!"
I do not see that. Again maybe I am too blind myself but I do not see anything wrong with the statement made in CRUX. Nor do I agree with Highers that it is a "subjective" move. The statement should not be isolated from the rest of the chapter entitled "Open Bibles and Open Hearts." Here are a few more statements made about interpretation. The authors first develop some ATTITUDES that should be characteristic of students approaching the word, then they give some specific guidelines on reading from the Core (contra Highers charge).
1) Interpretation is inevitable (p. 155). I do not see how this could be denied. The authors affirm the prior authority of the Bible over our interpretations and traditions however.
"We strongly believe that God speaks to us in a special way in the written word." (p.156). "We uphold . . . that the Bible is a divine witness, the revelation of God, inspired by the Father through the Son by the means of the Spirit ... It has unique status and authority, to challenge, question, and correct any authority brought to the table." (Ibid).
Sounds Orthodox to me.
2) They believe we should approach Scripture humbly and confessionally (p. 163). Scripture needs to be "freed" to challenge us and confront us. Even our "traditions" should be challenged and corrected in the light of Scripture (I point this out because some are claiming the authors give a "normative" status to tradition which is untrue). "We must resist letting our traditional interpretations become the authority so that we elevate them as idols... "(p. 163).
We must be humble enough to admit we are mere humans and we are not the only one to have escaped the Fall.
3) "Bible reading should reflect awareness that God is a WHO rather than a WHAT" (p. 164). "Reading the Bible should lead us to tremble and wonder not set our jaws with audacious certainty."
4) Proper Bible interpretation has more to do with character and attitude than it does with intellectual training and a scientific method. Perquisites for authentic Bible study and formation of sound doctrine are piety and holiness (p. 167). I can only say amen!
5) We should read from the Core. "The core is our starting point and controls our Bible reading. " (p. 170). Reading this way "allows us to connect the pieces together and align them on the center of gravity -- NEGLECTING NOTHING, but allowing each piece to find its proper place" (p.170-171, my emphasis).
Basic Questions will lead us to the core -- every time:
A. "What things are mentioned most in Scripture?"
B. "What is specifically highlighted as most important?"
C. "What things keep showing up at the center of the writer's message?" (p. 172).
Though the writers explicitly say they are not writing so much about the nuts and bolts about interpretation rather about attitudes they do provide some fundamental questions that are anything but "subjective." Each of the questions above can be given an empirical answer.
Further I would like to say that pure logic is not the litmus test for any biblical teaching. It is hard to use Aristotelian logic to explain the atonement or the Trinity or the Incarnation. The Pharisees had their own logic and Jesus told them.
"But go learn what this means: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have come not to call the righteous but sinners." (Matthew 9.13, cf. 12.7).
Mercy is not logic. The cross is not worldly logic or wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1. 20ff}. That does not make me "anti" logic or anti rational. It simply shows me that logic has limits.
The call to read from the "core" though is hardly a new thing with our CRUX authors. Alexander Campbell firmly believed one of the fundamental contributions of his Reformation was the distinction between "Gospel" and "Doctrine."
"The difference between PREACHING and TEACHING Christ, so palpable in the apostolic age, though now confounded in the theoretic theologies of Denominational Christianities [sic], must be well defined and clearly distinguished in the mind, in the style; and utterances of the evangelist" (Alexander Campbell, MH, "Address Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Christian Missionary Society," 1857, p. 60b).
This was no "speculative distinction" according to Campbell. "It was," he said, "appreciated fully understood and acted upon -- or carried out, in the apostolic ministry. Hence we read in Acts v.42, that after thousands of Jews had been converted to Christ the apostles "daily in the temple and from house to house, ceased not to teach and to preach (or announce the glad tidings) that Jesus was the Christ." (p. 607).
I find it interesting that according to Campbell it was a mark of convoluted denominationalism to miss the distinction between "gospel" and "doctrine." Now lest I be accused of following Campbell and not Scripture I maintain that this is in fact a BIBLICAL distinction. There is "kerygma" and there is "Didache." In the scholarly world this was pretty much settled through the work of C. H. Dodd's The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments.
Even Everett Ferguson recommends we read out of the core. He recommends the same basic procedure as our CRUX authors,
"Sometimes people, finding the heart of the gospel, want to treat the rest of biblical teaching as irrelevant. It may be secondary, but it is not irrelevant. The PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO WORK OUT FROM THE CENTER OF THE GOSPEL TO OTHER THINGS and apply the gospel to other aspects of doctrine." (The Church of Christ, p. xx, my emphasis).
Now I wish for Highers or Tidwell to tell me a substantive difference between what Ferguson just wrote and what the authors of Crux did quoted at the beginning of this section. I agree with every iota of -- including that other material is not irrelevant. It is just not the core.
The fact of the matter is, as painful as it is to admit (and it is painful), that "we" as a people have redefined the gospel of Christ to be much broader than it is in Scripture. I will highlight R. L. Whiteside simply because I know more about him than anyone else. Whiteside was a great servant of God, powerful writer, loved the Lord and endured hardship. He, however, redefined the Gospel to be to be the NT and anything contained within it. (see Robert P. Valentine, Robertson Lafayette Whiteside: Systematic Theologian for the Churches of Christ, Thesis at Harding Graduate School, Spring 2001, pp. 70-102).
IV. Finally "Shades of Pentecostalism."
Because the authors of CRUX believe that God is alive and well, that they believe that God is "moving among us now to reform and perfect us" he charges them with "Shades of Pentecostalism!" (p. 3). Thankfully Highers views on the Holy Spirit are not the majority view in Churches of Christ anymore. The Church of the NT certainly believed that God was active among them. It is a false conclusion to assume, as Highers does, that because one believes that the Spirit leads us today that we are "infallible."
Even in the Church of the NT in which many exercised "miraculous" gifts (including prophecy) this did not mean they were speaking ex cathedra! They still had to "test the spirits." They still received apostolic instruction. That the Holy Spirit leads Christians is to me a very "logical" conclusion from the text of scripture itself.
Conclusion
As is clear I disagree with Highers perspective on numerous issues. I do regard him as a fine brother in Christ who is dedicated to the Lord. I feel that much of his criticism is unjustified and results from a misunderstanding of the authors or even perhaps a failure to grasp certain teaching of Scripture on some points (as I see it but I am most certain he would feel the same about me).
I have not referred to any former leader because they are inspired but simply because they have something worth hearing. The same charge that William Woodson (and others) lay at the feet of the authors of Crux could also be returned to them. Woodson says the change agents think they are wiser and have discovered things missed by everyone else. Rather it is Woodson and company who think they are wiser than all our Forefathers in the faith. I have not discovered anything "new." No I have discovered something "old" that my grandfathers in the faith knew and understood but was forgotten along the way. I rediscovered the beauty of Christ-centered undenominational Christianity. And I think CRUX can help us along the way . . . if we are humble and open to dialogue.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Jesus Pattern
As we read through the Gospels a striking "pattern" dances gently across the pages of the life of Jesus. The most unsavory people are attracted to him wherever he went. We see a Samaritan lady, a mercenary hoodlum of Herod, a hostess to seven demons, a few tax collectors, and a woman caught in the very act of sexual misconduct. It is quite shocking actually!
In stark contrast Jesus received a very cold shoulder from the the religious "church-going" folk. The pious (and they were!) Pharisees thought him uncouth and even worldly, a wealthy young ruler walked away shaking his head in dismay, and even the open-minded Nicodemus seeks the shelter of the night lest he be seen talking to Jesus.
What is even stranger still is today the "pattern" seems markedly reversed. The Christian church now attracts respectable types who closely resemble the very folks who despised Jesus in his own day; while the folks who flocked to Jesus are hard to find and want nothing to do with us. What has happened to reverse the "pattern"? Why don't "sinners" like being around us today?
Jesus' Mission
Somehow we have created a community of respectability in the "church." The down and out no longer seem to feel welcome in our assemblies. How did Jesus, the most holy person in the history of the world, manage to attract such notoriously flawed people? And what keeps us from following his steps? These are questions I believe we must ask, and face, if we are to be the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus understood his mission. He knew why he was here and that helped him "keep focused." We, the Body of Christ, are to have the same focus as the Head. But what was the focus of the mission of Jesus Christ?
The Gospels are fairly clear. Jesus, in the synagogue in his own hometown, delivered a "homily" on Isaiah 61. During worship he read a portion of the prophecy, it reads ...
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners,
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the Year of the Lord's favor" (Lk 4.18-19)
Jesus declares that this prophecy fulfilled even as the congregation heard it (v. 21). But the Spirit of the Lord came on Jesus for a specific reason, to empower him for a task, to give him a "mission." This text is programmatic for the Gospel of Luke. The Year of Jubilee ... the Sabbath of Sabbaths ... is front and center for the mission of Jesus. We might ask who are the poor, just as the rich man asked "who is my neighbor?" But the poor, the blind, oppressed are surely central for a church that claims allegiance to the mission of Jesus. Jesus' mission is to lead these captives in a new exodus to freedom, redemption and life.
Jesus' mission, as defined by himself, was to liberate the down and out people. His mission was to was a mission of mercy. His mission was to set the captives free. Notice none of the people targeted by Jesus were the respectable people with money and power, those who had it all figured out, none that were in control. The people addressed in this text are simply nobodies like those in Moses' original exodus ...
Jesus knew his mission to be the embodiment of Jubilee. The question for us is do we understand that our mission is the same as his? Jesus came to heal the world. To set the Jeffrey Dahmers of Tucson free. Jesus came to serve those in their third ... yes even fourth or fifth marriage! Jesus saw his task as that of a doctor (Lk 5.31f). He came to bring slaves out of bondage. He came to banish the suffering that vandalized God's good creation - the blind, the exploited, the humble. He even came to rescue me!
Some may think "Bobby there was more to Jesus' mission than this." I don't think so. Everything Jesus said or did in those wonder years on earth was to accomplish what he says right here in Luke 4. We have confirmation of this in numerous passages in the Gospels.
In Luke 7, John the Baptizer was thrown in prison with his life hanging on by a thread. He sends a fact finding crew to Jesus with a list of questions ... "have I made a mistake" (see v.20). The response of Jesus to the Baptizer is enlightening. It is remarkably similar to his sermon in 4.18f. Luke describes the situation in this way:
At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sickness and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind? So he replied to the messengers, 'Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor" (7.21-22)
John's question was "are you really the Messiah?" Jesus' response was "look at what the Spirit of the Lord has anointed me to do." The new age has dawned, the new exodus of setting the captives free is in full swing. This mission is why Jesus was friends with sinners. This is why unsavory folk liked to be around him. This is why the respectable church going crowd were put off ... why they held their councils and why they branded him as a false prophet and eventually murdered him!
Luke reveals a Jesus hardly threatened by a person's so called "uncleanness." He reached out with his Word incarnated hands and embraced the unsavory with love and compassion. He talked to them. He listened to them. He touched them. He sat with them. He ate with them. He was seen with them. He loved them. He was on their side. This was his mission. Jesus brought the Good News of liberation, redemption, and wholeness to the folks the religious folks held at arms length. The Pharisees, the Essenes, the Sadducees all said in one way or another "you are not good enough." You are not clean enough. You do not have the right pedigree. You have tattoos. Your clothes are not proper. You are from the wrong side of town. You are the wrong color. We really haven't decided why but you still can't come!
Jesus of Nazareth smashed ALL of that! This situation was not of Moses btw! He led a mission of liberation for outcasts too! But Jesus said to the ones with no pedigree, the ones with no power or influence, the "sinners" of all stripes ... the God of Israel has NOT REJECTED YOU. The Father has sent me to proclaim his special favor on even you.
Sometimes we, like the church folk of Jesus day, we erect hurdles and barriers to God's grace. Certain tests have to be met before we welcome them. C. S. Lewis once remarked "prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in danger of that."
The "Logic" of Grace
Jesus' mission was one of grace to all. The mission of the Year of Jubilee was a rescue mission. We cannot really be too concerned with our own personal safety when on a rescue mission - it is inherently dangerous. This is how the Son of God ended upon a Tree. It wasn't the so called "sinners" who crucified the Son of Man! It was the elders, the deacons, and the Sunday School teachers who killed him!!
The church is the "body of Christ." Our mission is the same as Jesus'. Luke picks up on this theme from Jesus' "personal" ministry and shows how it is the mission of the Gathered People in in the book of Acts. There were no "needy" in the Jerusalem church. The assembly of God welcomed eunuchs and even unclean "Gentiles" The old way said "no undesirable people allowed" And Jesus said "come unto me all who are weary and burdened ..."
The early church struggled to follow the "Logic of Grace" exhibited in the Messiah. After some training in the ways of God they became renown in the Roman Empire for their support for the poor and suffering. The Christians, unlike many, readily ransomed their brothers and sisters from "barbarian" captors, and when the plagues hit, the Christians tended the suffering even as the world abandoned them. The early church took the mission of Jesus as their mission -- to receive strangers, to clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, and to visit the ones in prison. These were not ancillary ministries of the kingdom ... they WERE the thrust the kingdom of God into a world needing redemption.
Recently I have tried to picture the scene from Jesus' day. The poor. The sick. The sinners. The prostitutes. They all crowed around the picture of purity and holiness stirred by his message of healing, forgiveness and wholeness. The rich. The powerful. The Bible thumpers. The righteous. They are all gathered on the perimeter snorting in derision. They test his doctrinal soundness. They spy. They try to trap him in some debate on doctrinal minutia. I know these facts about Jesus' time, and yet, from the comfort of a middle class church in a wildly rich country like the United States, I easily lose sight of the real core of Jesus mission ... which is his message. I looked in my mind's eye, and to my consternation, I found myself among the church-goers of Jesus' day instead of loving and offering forgiveness to those who desperately need it. And I confess that I desperately need it!
If we are to be the Church OF Jesus we can see no undesirable human. The Logic of Grace is that God loves the poor. The suffering. The persecuted. The outcast. The divorcee. The misguided. Even, thankfully, the Sunday school teacher and preacher! If we dare to place the name of Jesus upon our buildings then we need to be rooted in his mission. Jesus challenges us to look at the world through what the early Christian, Irenaeus, termed "grace-healed eyes!" With Grace-healed eyes we begin to see the world through the Logic of Grace defined in the Mission of Jesus himself ... only then are we really the church of Jesus the Messiah.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Here is a short study I shared with local preachers here in Tucson by request. May it bless you ...
Tucson Preacher’s Meeting
September 8, 2009
The Worship of God:
Insight from the Apocrypha
When the subject of worship comes up I see basically two extremes that form. 1) There are those who out of fear of "Pattern Theology" reject any notion of "corporate" worship and something called an "act" of worship. This view is also rooted in a sharp (ironically an extreme form of Campbell’s dispensational hermeneutic) disjunction between the Testaments. This is a view that I believe is wrong headed. This view is also rooted in a caricature of Jewish worship in Jesus' own day. The "assembly" in this view is not about worship at all but edification. Worship can only take place through daily life. 2) The other extreme is that of Pattern Theology itself with its assumption that worship is limited only five prescribed "acts" of worship. If one of these "acts" are not named it cannot be worship. Edification plays only a small role in the assembly of this point of view. I think both views fall short of the biblical, historical and theological mark. (See my book with John Mark Hicks and Johnny Melton A Gathered People for more on my views on the assembly)
What I propose to do is share some attitudes pertaining to worship by the Jews during the Second Temple period -- that is basically the time of the Christ or just prior to him. Both groups mentioned above usually approach the subject of worship and the teaching of Scripture in an unhistorical manner -- thus coming up with some demonstrably wrong conclusions about Jewish attitudes of the day.
The Apocrypha provides extremely valuable information and background for understanding many subjects in the NT and even specific passages. Worship happens to be a subject that is enriched by the Apocrypha. Scattered throughout this literature are references to both corporate and "life-style" worship.
On several occasions the Apocrypha contains detailed accounts of entire "worship services" or “worship gatherings.” For example Josiah's Passover celebration in 1 Esdras 1 and Nehemiah's sacrifice of dedication in 2 Maccabees 1; the Temple rededication account in 1 Maccabees 4 and the Temple dedication in 1 Esdras 5-7. These accounts show us the role of the priesthood in Hebrew worship, the role of the "congregation" in participating in worship also.
More specifically the Apocrypha mentions a wide array of worship responses from God's People during the time of Jesus and the early church. These would include:
1) Raising hands and prostration in worship (1 Esdras 9.47; Sirach 50.17; 1 Maccabees 4.55; Judith 6.18; 13.17; etc)
2) Pilgrimages to Jerusalem and festival worship (Tobit 1.6; 5.13; etc)
3) Prayer including certain postures of prayer (Tobit 12.8; 13.1; Sirach 7.14; etc)
4) Repentance and confession including fasting (1 Esdras 8.91; Tobit 12.8; etc)
5) Temple worship including daily sacrifice (Judith 4.14; 16.16-18; etc)
What comes as a surprise, perhaps, to those unfamiliar with Jewish literature of the period is the heavy emphasis on personal piety as the foundation of any corporate worship and upon "works of righteousness" as an outgrowth of worship. Personal devotion is rooted in obedience to God's gracious Torah and is essential for proper worship (4 Maccabees 5.24). In addition the "fear of the Lord" (Judith 16.15; Sirach 1.11-20; 7.29-31) and a right heart are accorded prominence in the worship of God in Jewish writings of the time of Jesus (among other places see 2 Maccabees 1.3-4; 15.27; Sirach 1.12; 21.6; etc). Listen to the words of 2 Maccabees
"May he {the Lord} give you all a heart of worship and a willing spirit. May he open your heart to his law and commandments, and my he bring peace" (1.3-4).
Likewise, worship as service to others, that is as in a lifestyle of good deeds, is regarded as a natural complement to the worship of God (3 Maccabees 3.4). This Third Maccabees text sounds reminiscent of Luke's description of the early believers in Jerusalem where they did good deeds and yet were also outcasts ...
"The Jews, however, continued to maintain goodwill and unswerving loyalty to the dynasty; but because they worshiped God and conducted themselves by his law, they kept their separateness with respect to foods ... but since they adorned their style of life with the good deeds of upright people they were established in good repute with everyone." (3 Macc 3.3-5)
For Jews of Jesus' day charity and almsgiving to the poor and the socially disadvantaged are essential works of mercy of God's People (Tobit 4.11; 12.9; Sirach 17.22; 29.12; 40.17, 24; etc).
The Book of Tobit brings most of these themes together in one delightful, and very edifying, story. Sometimes called the Pilgrim's Progress of the Apocrypha, Tobit is a tale of faith in adversity. Tobit recognizes the spiritual warfare surrounding this life and the importance of personal piety in the sea of human trials. Significant for my purposes is the nexus in Tobit between corporate worship (1.6-9), private devotion (13.3-6, see the whole chapter), and the worship response of a life-style of service to others (12.6-10).
The key ingredient for inspiring this participation in corporate worship and the lifestyle of praise and service to God is personal piety before God. Here the Book of Tobit mirrors quite closely the Hebrew Bible's demand of personal piety for coming into the Holy Presence of God. In Tobit piety is focused upon the "fear of the Lord" (4.21; 14.2, 6) and is demonstrated by three practices: prayer, fasting and almsgiving to the poor (4.5-11; 12.8-15). These three acts of piety would later become known as the "Three Pillars of Judaism" (See G. F. Moore's classic, Judaism in the first Three Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1, p. 35ff).
What I think we see in Tobit is a balance that is not seen in many contemporary discussions of "worship." To say that there is in fact a time when God's People gather together in his Presence in "corporate" worship in no way negates the truth that we are to have a "lifestyle" of worship responses (a lifestyle of sacrifice). Tobit knows this truth very well -- and I am convinced that Paul did as well.
Tobit sees that corporate worship, a lifestyle of praise and devotion and works of mercy are not "either/or" propositions; rather all three are like strings in a rope that depend upon each other. What the Apocrypha, and especially Tobit, show us is that the Jews never believed that worship was reduced to legalistic RITUAL and certain prescribed "acts" done in the Temple. Rather worship was the essence of life itself and service to God (this should not surprise us for every word Paul uses for worship he pulls out of the Jewish Bible and "lectionary" when he mentions worship -- this is particularly true of the Hebrew Writer). The Apocrypha exposes our assumptions about Jewish worship in the time of Christ -- that it was essentially legalistic or . . . as unfounded. The Apocrypha shows that Jews in Jesus' day saw a meaningful connection between corporate worship, private worship and works of mercy as responses to worship.
Maybe I am wrong (but I do not think so) but I believe this same dynamic underlies the New Testament's teaching regarding worship -- especially as it is seen in 1 Corinthians, Hebrews and even Revelation. When we get Christians to understand this relationship of the grace of coming into his Presence in corporate worship and how that then empowers us for a holy lifestyle (and how that lifestyle also prepares us for corporate worship) of devotion and service -- we just might see a major revival among our churches. Perhaps we would also see fewer "worship wars!"
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Greetings! I have been a busy beaver lately and have not updated my blog as I like or planned. I just returned from a visit to Alabama for legal reasons. That trip did not end up going as expected but God is still in control. While there I still had to prepare for lessons at PaLO VErde here in Tucson. Being near a small theological library (at Heritage Christian University) afforded me the opportunity to dig into a few journals that I do not normally get too. Sooooo I followed the Pauline injunction to "redeem the time." I thought I might share some of the readings ...
Spent most of my time reading the Acts of the Apostles especially the ending ...
I read a good deal of the September/October Biblical Archeology Review ... I recommend especially Michael Homan's piece "Did the Israelites Drink Beer?" ... Through this article I tracked down Homan's much more scholarly "Beer, Barley, and shekhar in the Hebrew Bible" in Le-David Maskil, A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman. Homan argues, and I think has sufficiently demonstrated, the case that shekhar is basically ale or beer. The word is usually translated "strong drink" or the like in modern English versions. Homan reviews the linguistic evidence, and probably most interesting, and the archeological data. Through Homan footnotes I discovered Magen Broshi's "Date Beer and Date Wine in Antiquity," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139 (2007): 55-59 which examines five vats used for producing "Date Beer" around Jericho and Ein Feshkha. "Date Beer" was the principle alcoholic beverage in Mesopotamia in the Iron Age on down. These three articles are fascinating in their own right but also provide quite an interesting window into numerous passages in the Hebrew Bible and on the life of the People of God. Those interested in what the Bible says about beer but are tired of heat and smoke but no light these are worth the effort to get.
The July 2008 issue of Interpretation was themed on Gerhard von Rad. Several fascinating articles are to be found here. Bernard M. Levinson's "Reading the Bible in Nazi Germany: Gerhard von Rad's Attempt to Reclaim the Old Testament for the Church" (pp. 2338-254) was more than enlightening. Von Rad the young 30 something German scholar found himself teaching at the Nazi infested University of Jena. The theological faculty moved to sever Jesus from his Hebrew roots (denied Jesus' Jewish heritage, ceased teaching Hebrew, etc). von Rad publicly lectured there is no access to Christ except through the "Old Testament." At any rate this article is rich in nuance in demonstrating not only the genuine faith of von Rad but also of how our circumstances genuinely influence not just what we read in Scripture but how we read it.
While looking for something else I accidentally found, and got distracted by, Harvey Minkoff's essay "Coarse Language in the Bible, It's Culture Shocking!" in Approaches to the Bible: The Best of Bible Review (edited by Harvey Minkoff, published by BAR). Numerous questions pop up in this essay, like "How should we approach euphemism and rough language in Scripture." Minkoff notes that translators often have issues to deal with that are beyond simply what the Hebrew text means but rather the sensitivity of a religious public. There are many places where the Bible is far more graphic and "coarse" than what is perceived as righteous talk in Sunday school. He quotes a letter to the editor of the Oxford Study Edition of the NEB over changes in the British and American editions ... "we delicate American mortals are being protected by the coarse language of Scripture."
Finally on my way home on the plane I read through Barry L. Perryman's A Call to Unity: A Critical Review of Patternism and the Command-Example-Inference-Silence Hermeneutic. Perryman argues that in essence "patternism" is a doctrine of self-salvation built on the notion that IF humans obey God's law "well enough" God must reward us with a crown of righteousness. After arguing that "CEIS" divorces passages from their context to construct new doctrines yet many patternists do not see how the pattern demands conforming to the law of love and forbearance.
There are many positives in Perryman's Call to Unity. Patternism does not respect the narrative quality of the Gospel. This particular approach has often led to a defensive posture rather than an exploratory one. And I agree that Patternism has often led to unbelievable division with in the Lord's church.
There are some weaknesses in this work as well. On a minor note the "Inductive Method" did not begin with the 13th century philosopher Roger Bacon (p. 19). Perryman is probably parroting D.R. Dungan on this point (he cites Dungan repeatedly in this work). Francis Bacon gave this method to the world around the same time as Galileo. Bacon was a highly regarded thinker across the board in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is one of the weaknesses of Perryman's book is that it does not reflect engagement with a large body of literature on the history and development of what we might call the "restoration hermeneutic." Finally, and this is not a defense of either Patternism or "CEIS", but this hermeneutic does not necessarily lead to sectarian attitudes or legalism. Men like J. D. Thomas who were devoted to the traditional hermeneutic were men full of the Spirit and dedicated to unity.
There are so many things to read ... so little time.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Spent most of my time reading the Acts of the Apostles especially the ending ...
I read a good deal of the September/October Biblical Archeology Review ... I recommend especially Michael Homan's piece "Did the Israelites Drink Beer?" ... Through this article I tracked down Homan's much more scholarly "Beer, Barley, and shekhar in the Hebrew Bible" in Le-David Maskil, A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman. Homan argues, and I think has sufficiently demonstrated, the case that shekhar is basically ale or beer. The word is usually translated "strong drink" or the like in modern English versions. Homan reviews the linguistic evidence, and probably most interesting, and the archeological data. Through Homan footnotes I discovered Magen Broshi's "Date Beer and Date Wine in Antiquity," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139 (2007): 55-59 which examines five vats used for producing "Date Beer" around Jericho and Ein Feshkha. "Date Beer" was the principle alcoholic beverage in Mesopotamia in the Iron Age on down. These three articles are fascinating in their own right but also provide quite an interesting window into numerous passages in the Hebrew Bible and on the life of the People of God. Those interested in what the Bible says about beer but are tired of heat and smoke but no light these are worth the effort to get.
The July 2008 issue of Interpretation was themed on Gerhard von Rad. Several fascinating articles are to be found here. Bernard M. Levinson's "Reading the Bible in Nazi Germany: Gerhard von Rad's Attempt to Reclaim the Old Testament for the Church" (pp. 2338-254) was more than enlightening. Von Rad the young 30 something German scholar found himself teaching at the Nazi infested University of Jena. The theological faculty moved to sever Jesus from his Hebrew roots (denied Jesus' Jewish heritage, ceased teaching Hebrew, etc). von Rad publicly lectured there is no access to Christ except through the "Old Testament." At any rate this article is rich in nuance in demonstrating not only the genuine faith of von Rad but also of how our circumstances genuinely influence not just what we read in Scripture but how we read it.
While looking for something else I accidentally found, and got distracted by, Harvey Minkoff's essay "Coarse Language in the Bible, It's Culture Shocking!" in Approaches to the Bible: The Best of Bible Review (edited by Harvey Minkoff, published by BAR). Numerous questions pop up in this essay, like "How should we approach euphemism and rough language in Scripture." Minkoff notes that translators often have issues to deal with that are beyond simply what the Hebrew text means but rather the sensitivity of a religious public. There are many places where the Bible is far more graphic and "coarse" than what is perceived as righteous talk in Sunday school. He quotes a letter to the editor of the Oxford Study Edition of the NEB over changes in the British and American editions ... "we delicate American mortals are being protected by the coarse language of Scripture."
Finally on my way home on the plane I read through Barry L. Perryman's A Call to Unity: A Critical Review of Patternism and the Command-Example-Inference-Silence Hermeneutic. Perryman argues that in essence "patternism" is a doctrine of self-salvation built on the notion that IF humans obey God's law "well enough" God must reward us with a crown of righteousness. After arguing that "CEIS" divorces passages from their context to construct new doctrines yet many patternists do not see how the pattern demands conforming to the law of love and forbearance.
There are many positives in Perryman's Call to Unity. Patternism does not respect the narrative quality of the Gospel. This particular approach has often led to a defensive posture rather than an exploratory one. And I agree that Patternism has often led to unbelievable division with in the Lord's church.
There are some weaknesses in this work as well. On a minor note the "Inductive Method" did not begin with the 13th century philosopher Roger Bacon (p. 19). Perryman is probably parroting D.R. Dungan on this point (he cites Dungan repeatedly in this work). Francis Bacon gave this method to the world around the same time as Galileo. Bacon was a highly regarded thinker across the board in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is one of the weaknesses of Perryman's book is that it does not reflect engagement with a large body of literature on the history and development of what we might call the "restoration hermeneutic." Finally, and this is not a defense of either Patternism or "CEIS", but this hermeneutic does not necessarily lead to sectarian attitudes or legalism. Men like J. D. Thomas who were devoted to the traditional hermeneutic were men full of the Spirit and dedicated to unity.
There are so many things to read ... so little time.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
