Humanity in a Divine Organization?

I'm struggling to come to terms with the controversies going around in the Orthodox Church. I've added links to the BLOGs on the left side of this page which show both sides. Combat and words are being thrown around that make the Calvary Chapel battles of the past 13 years seem tame in comparison.

The part that scares me is the authoritarian nature of the responses of the leadership of these churches reminds me so much of the unaccountablility of the non-denominational churches of my earlier Christianity. Calls for audits are met by denials of financial wrongdoing as well as claims that it would be a waste of the Lord's money to conduct audits. Heard this story in Calvary Chapel, the Vineyard movement and now in I am hearing it again in Orthodoxy.

How do I come to terms with an organization which has such high claims of authority and at the same time such low professional standards? There are established canons which are appealed to and perhaps are being ignored.

Clergy are mass demoted from bishops to auxiliary bishops under the metropolitan. Is the metropolitan now the bishop? How does it all work out?

Seminary students are withdrawn from Orthodox seminaries days before they are supposed to start classes and told to move long distances to other seminaries. All of this is allegedly because the Metropolitan has a grudge against the seminary because there is a BLOGger they haven't shut down. I feel this personally having taken my family across the country to go to seminary. What would it have been like for me to told I needed to undo that and move to another place days before classes were to start? With a wife days from delivering a child?

Some on the BLOGs say just to wait it out. The current head is old and will someday die. They said that about Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel some 15 years ago. He's still hanging in there at 82 years of age. Still running the show.

Others say that the Antiochians are just the wrong place to be. From what I can tell they are the best place for a convert. Did I choose wrong?

I've long ago given up on a search for the "perfect church". I haven't believed in that possibility in a very long time. Is this pragmatism or am I just disillusioned?

Is this all the fall?

Lutherans, Homosexuals, Minnesota and a Calvinist Prophet

John Piper has stated in his BLOG that the tornados that struck the Twin Cities were God's judgment on the Lutheran body meeting to decide the place of homosexuals in the ordained ministry in the ELCA church. The secular press has picked up the story.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The claim has been made by some Orthodox that:

For about 1,600 years the entire Church affirmed the ever-virginity of Mary. The notion that she did not remain a virgin was introduced by the Anabaptists and some Calvinists long after the Reformation was an established reality.

I don't believe that is historically accurate.

The teaching that Mary was ever-virgin is, as Michael Hyatt has noted (MP3) a major sticking point for some in conversion. For me it's the biggest theological point I have remaining. I've studied it and from what I can tell it was not the uniform teaching of the Orthodox church from the beginning.

There was a diversity of opinion about this view at the time of Origen (ca 248 AD), for instance. Origen wrote about the origin of the teaching and the diversity of opinion on the matter:

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Tertullian taught that Mary lost her virginity in the conception of Christ. (De carn Chr. 23.) Tertullian also believed that Mary had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born (Adv Marc 4, 19 de monog. 8, de virg vel. 6.). Tertullian also believed that the brothers were actually borne by Mary.

At the time of Jerome, there were people who rejected the view. Example, "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius," ca 383 AD. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus.

At the time of Augustine, there were people who rejected the teaching:

Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

The Antidicomarianity and the Arian Eynomius openly taught that the brothers of Jesus were borne by Mary. Basil of Caesarea did not agree, but admitted that the view was widely held and is not incompatible with orthodoxy (Hom,. in sanctam Christi gen (PG 31, 1468 f.))..

Also, it seems to me that there are two competing and contradictory claims about who the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were. One is that they were children of Joseph from a prior marriage. Another contradictory view is that they were cousins of Jesus. Both can't be right but both claim ancient origins.

The phrase "ever-virgin" did not come into vogue until post-Nicaea.

Chrysostom pointed out Mary was a sinner (e. g. hom in Matt 44:2, in John 21:2). In fact, at that time, only in Syria was Ephraem calling her free from every sin, like her son (Carm, Nisib 28, 8).

Hilliary denounced those who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, demonstrating that there were people who denied it at his time (Comm in Matt 1, 3 f.).

Jerome invented the theory that the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins, not his brothers.

Interestingly the heretic Pelagius (who believed in the possibility of living a sinless life) believed that Mary lived a sinless life. Augustine agreed with Pelagius, but taught that Mary was a singularity.

The Lateran synod of AD 649 was the first to stress the threefold character of Mary's virginity.

Thus, contrary to the Council of Trent, the perpetual virginity was not a concensus of the Fathers.

Evidence of prayers to Mary in the first four centuries of the church is almost non-existent (Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines, pp 491-on).

Emergent Theology and Orthodoxy

One of the podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio concerned the four (struggling for the right word here) "angles" on the church. What surprised me was the speaker dealt with not just Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox but with the Emergent Church. I had expected interaction with the other older traditions, but to hear them grappling with the meaning of the emergent (post-modern) movement was unforeseen.

On a different podcast, Metropolitan Philip of the (American) Antiochian Archdiocese was asking questions about shape of the liturgy in the future. He asked if the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom would be used by future generations or if they would have a liturgy all their own. It is interesting to see the Orthodox dealing with the questions of cultural relevance.

The Ancient Faith

A couple of things have caught my attention recently.

Ancient Faith Radio

I've spent the last couple of days listening to podcasts from Ancient Faith Radio. Some great material on there ranging from Liturgies to seminars to preaching and teaching.

Energetic Procession

A buddy of mine, Perry Robinson, has a great BLOG on Orthodox subjects, called Energetic Procession, which focuses largely on philosophy/theology. Sometimes the intricacies of the material can be hard to follow, but if you try hard you are guaranteed to learn something.

There are a lot of different subjects discussed including free will and determinism. If I had to sum up the BLOG in one short sentence the takeaway I get is "character counts". We form what we become by our choices.

Epigenetics and Original Sin

Interesting thought? That there's more to our inheritance than merely the set of genes that are passed down. Somehow our behavior is passed down as well. The old nature vs nurture argument has shifted dramatically in the direction of nurture and away from the old mechanistic view that it's all in your genes.

Nova did a program on epigenetics. The link between epigenes and obesity is explore by BBC News.

"Mystery" and the Bible

Christians often misuse the word “mystery” to describe something that they can’t understand or more particularly something that the believe God has not revealed.

The Greek word, “musterion”, translated in English as “mystery” meant something totally different. Rather than being something hidden to believers, a “mystery” is something which is only hidden now to unbelievers. A “mystery” in the Bible is something now revealed to the believer.

Follow the texts:

Mar 4:11 And He said to them, To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God. But to these, those outside, all things are being given in parables,

Rom 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be wise within yourselves, that hardness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the nations comes in;

Rom 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times, but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations;

Check out the rest with a concordance. There are 22 NT uses of “mystery”. They all refer to something that is revealed, not something unknown or hidden. Quite the contrary.

Critiques of Wright

I was asked about the following paper:

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/nt/NT.h.Hill.Wright.html

The question was "What do I think about this paper?"

Well, since you asked, here's my 2c worth...

The good part is that the author of this paper has the core point of Wright correct. That's not always the case with Wright's critics. The central point is what I have referred to elsewhere in this BLOG as the Sander's Revolution.

The bad part is that he is wrong in his critique of Wright. It's not that he misses the point, but he does not accept the point.

First, I question his methodology of determining the meaning of the word from a Lectionary. Nearly every Protestant Lectionary would tend to have a juridical definition, given our heritage, which is precisely what the Wright/Sander's Revolution rejects. Therefore, stating that all of the author's authorites are on the same side as the author, says nothing that the author is not already telling. Wright admits the "novelty" of his idea against a Protestant backdrop. It would be easier to quote Wright's own admissions that his idea is not historically mainstream and move to the next point.

If you want a good read of the historical baggage that comes with the word, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on justification adds some color and perspective to this issue. Certainly a Catholic Lectionary would probably have a different focus than a Protestant one (I don't have one handy, but I assume it would).

In my experience, there is a better way to determine the meaning of a word and that is through word substitution, which is the methodology Wright follows. Replace the word in question with the test phrase and see if it makes sense and continues to make sense. Wright stands up quite well in that regard.

From Wright, justification, for the Christian, is not about how to become a Christian, but the Justified One, Jesus, and our standing in Him. First century false systems of justification are not about failures of law-keeping, rather they are other systems that a person puts their trust in.

It is clear that for the first century Jew, their trust was in their physical descendency from Abraham and that they possessed the Law of God. There are numerous text which demonstrate this. Here is one example which makes the point:

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Most people skip the point that is being made here by John the Baptist. The "repentance" that John is calling for here is best understood from the text. In context, they trusted their descendency from Abraham and John acts to cut off that possibility. They were not (at least in this passage) trusting in their works. John is not calling on them to repent from their trust in their dead law-works. He is calling for them to change their minds (repent) about their trusting in descending from Abraham. John is clearing the road for Jesus and they need to be on the right path when He comes. The right path is not trusting in Abraham, but in Jesus.

When Scripture is looked at from this point of view, a lot of passages suddenly make sense that did not make sense before. Here's another such test passage:

Luk 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

At first glance this passage appears to be talking about personal eschatology. Like the previous passage, it uses language such as "sinners", "repent" and "perish". But I don't think that is what Christ is saying at all. If I rephrase Christ using Wrightian language it would be something like this:

Do you think that the Galileans were worse than you because they died in that way? Unless you change your mind about revolt against Rome, you will die the same way. How about those that had the two fall on them as they tried to revolt against Rome. Do you think that you can avoid their fate when you revolt against Rome? Nope, unless you change your plans and follow my way, you will die like they died.

Which paradigm fits best Christ's meaning? The individual eschatology or the one that actually reflects the historical situation?

The historical fact is clear from reading outside the NT. The Pharisees did not believe in righteousness due to their following the Law. They thought they were holy because they possessed the Law and were descended from Abraham.

From the Mailbox...

Wright comments that Saunder's correctly understands that the New Perspective has at least one commonality with the Reformed tradition in that "it sees the Jewish Law as a good thing now fulfilled, rather than (as in much Lutheran thought) a bad thing now abolished."

As a theonomist, how do you think you would modify the above (quoted) statement?

Here's how I take the Sander's revolution.

The historical piece that Sanders contributed was the bringing home the idea that the Pharisees were NOT preaching a gospel of salvation by observation of the Law. This was a strawman that the Lutherans had constructed which was mostly based on the personal life and testimony of Luther (a monk who struggled with obedience to God, etc). For Luther, the "discovery" of salvation by grace and through faith then forced a radical dichotomy between Law keeping and salvation.

For Lutherans the only value of the Law is showing your shortcomings to you. The Reformed did not have as a radical a dichotomy as Luther. They saw that the Law had some continuing force even after Christ. This was the root of the eventual disagreements between "mainstream" Reformed and "theonomic" Reformed.

The implications for Lutherans is that they popularly tend to dismiss much of the Bible as "law" and go with the notion "We are no longer under the Law". Walther's book on the Law Gospel distinction is the classic work in that regard.

Walther was the founder of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. He has a methodology of parsing every passage/word in the New Testament into either Law or Gospel depending upon whether it makes a demand on a person. If it makes a demand, it's Law. Where it gets interesting is commands like "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". Since it makes a demand it is LAW to the Lutheran.

As a Theonomist we believe that the categories must be properly recognized initially. The ceremonial law was gone along with the temple in 70 AD. There are no more high priest, sacrifices, etc. That part of the Law is gone except in memory. Thus, the passages which speak of not mixing wool and linen, for instance, are part of that ceremonial observation and are no longer relevant. The passages a couple of verses later which speak of a man not laying with a man are moral (see below) and still have force.

For Lutherans, this has an immediate practical result in their apologetic for homosexual practices. Both the linen/wool passage and the "men shall not lie with men" passage are law and no longer in force. Thus, the ELCA and other Lutheran bodies are now struggling with issues around human sexuality.

Believing that governments should be organized by the civil part of the Law is what makes a person at theonomist. The theonomist is someone who buys into the idea that the civil part of the Law, while describing Israel and her God, has a force outside of that immediate geographical location. The idea is that the laws and penalties from the Old Testament are God's laws for organizing any nation of people who will follow Him.

The moral part of the law is where the battle happens. Again, Theonomy is a Reformed phenomenon. Thus, they take the moral aspects of the Law as describing things that are reflective of God's character.

These are very practical questions. Thus, you are much more likely to find a Reformed person who takes the Sabbath question more seriously than a Lutheran.

Matthew for Everyone

I am using the Matthew for Everyone commentary by N. T. Wright to prepare my weekly sermons. I am following the Revised Common Lectionary for text selection.

The text for this week is from Matthew 25:31-46. Wright has an interesting way of dealing with this text. The usual way of reading this text is to see it as referring to the judgment at the end of the age. Wright, of course, sees the end of the age as being in the first century. Thus, this judgment scene is one that is best seen, by Wright, as on going.

I think this is a very solid reading of the text. The problem is how to preach it that way. Since the idea will be new to many people their instinctive reaction will be to reject it. Of course, no preacher likes rejection. We all prefer to be accepted and understood.

Where is the exegetical center of this passage? The center seems to be in how the nations treat the church. The nations that are open to the church are blessed. The nations which are closed to the church are cursed. That matches what we can see with our own observation. The best thing a nation can do is open itself up for the Gospel and watch God change the nation.

EG: Unit 1, Day 1

Sometimes I think that Christians use words deliberately intended to confuse people who don't already speak their lingo. I went to a Halloween party at a local church which had a puppet show. There were a lot of non-Christians there but the puppets kept quoting scripture in a series of passages which meant very little to the non-Christians since they were not explained. Some got up and left. There needed to be an explanation for the non-Christians there.

The phrase "saving relationship" is one such Christian expression (EG Workbook, p 8). I don't honestly think that anyone who is not a Christian, and even many Christians, have the slightest idea what this phrase means. There is no analogy in daily life because the word "saving" is not one we can understand easily. The word is theologically loaded.

Perhaps we map "saving" into the idea of "going to Heaven" or some other such notion. This phrase is evangelical-speak, and is not Biblical. Remember the principle in EG where we get our ideas not from experience, but from the Bible? They would do well to apply it to the words in this book. This also scares off non-evangelical types.

I'd say ditch the phrase and replace it with something else. Even a phrase like "loving relationship", which would be meaningful for most people. Or find some word picture to explain it such as a strong marriage. There are marriages of convenience where the two are married on paper, but barely even speak with each other. Then there are marriages where people are in love and eager to be with each other. That's probably what is meant by the phrase "saving relationship", but it's hard to know since it is never defined.

To say that God desires a continuing, love relationship with us (chart EG Workbook p 225 point 2) is better. It brings to mind something that we can relate to better. The nature of the relationship and the duration make it clear that it is not a one time event and that it has real committment involved.

EG: Memorizing Scripture

I really respect people who can memorize. I can't. I have very poor memorization skills. Because I am so back at memorization, I have some tricks that the EG materials don't list.

My best memory trick is to write out the verse on a whiteboard. I then erase words and practice saying the verse. I leave just a few keywords at the end. I can then remember the keywords.

For instance, the keywords I have for Unit 1 are:
vine
branches
abide me I Him
fruit
apart nothing

With these keywords I can reconstruct the entire memory verse.

My other trick is to draw a picture of what I want to remember. I did this with fourth grade boys for John 15:5 and they all got it quickly. Draw on the whiteboard a vine with branches. Put the name of the boys on each branch. Put the name of another boy, not them since it would be traumatic on another branch. Show that branch as broken off and dying. They will remember the picture long after the words are gone.

Experiencing Experiencing God

Who Am I?

I am a pastor of a small church in the upper midwest USA. We have a group of ladies that went through the Experiencing God materials this past summer and asked me to teach it at our Wednesday Night Prayer/Bible Study Meetings.

Thus, I am facilitating a group of about sixteen people going through the book Experiencing God. This is my first time through this material. There are several in the group who have already been through the materials.

The rest of this particular BLOG post can be skipped if you are not interested in facilitating an Experiencing God group.

Early facilitating notes

I am writing these notes a couple of days after our very first Experiencing God class. All in all, it was a great start. For me it is hard to do materials that are not my own invention. But these materials are pretty well put together.

This would be very tough without using the Experiencing God Adult Leader's Guide. I wish I had taken more time to review the Adult Leader's Guide before starting this. I recommend taking about 8 hours to go through the Leader's Guide before the first class if you are new at this material (like me). If you have taken the course but not facilitated you probably could get ready in six hours. If you have taught it before, probably four hours would do. The Leader's Guide is definitely worth the extra $12 (amazon price).

There is a lot of photocopying in the first week. Copy extra. I had to send a student out to copy five more pages - I chose someone who had already facilitated in the past.

I wish we had purchaged new, blank journals before assigning the first week's unit so that I could have passed them out sooner.

For journaling, I like Composition Books. They are cheap ($1 at my local dollar store). They have wide rule so that there is plenty of room in them. In my opinion, the best ones are quad grided page Composition Books but they are pricier. They are a lot cheaper than the nicer bound journals you buy at a bookstore. They also hold together well.

Personally, I really like the smaller 4.5 x 3.25 version of these. Each page is much smaller but always seems to be enough for what I want to write down. If you buy the little ones don't buy the ones that are glued down the binding as they come apart. Buy the ones that look like paper folded - they are sown and the pages don't fall out of them. You can stiffen the backbone with packaging tape if you need to.

When it comes to journaling, the old motto is true: Your Mileage May Vary.

There are some places where the book could use improvement.

When I did Unit 1, Day 1, it asked for the memory verse. It was at the beginning of unit 1 before the day 1. It would have been helpful the first time through to remind where the memory verse was found (at least for this first lesson). I made the assumption that there was a memory verse for each day but it seems like there is one for each week/unit.

We only have one hour and this material does not easily break down into one hour sections. They have a suggestion in the leader's guide how to do that, but it did not seem obvious as I went through the Leader's Guide.

The video tapes are not cheap, they are about $140 for the class. I have to think that they are probably worth it but expensive for our small church to buy. I guess we will "wing it".

With our group size the book recommends breaking up into two separate classes. That's logistically tough for us since we meet before choir and that is a part of why many of the people turn out. We will see how this works out when the sharing starts.

That's about it for the administrative stuff. I'll post some reflections on the materials later.

When is the end?

One of the issues that this passage raises for me is that of timing.

Is this describing the events of the Second Coming of Christ, which is yet future from us now, or is this describing the events of 70 A. D.?

Apocalyptic language is much slippier than we often realize. We tend to read apocalyptic phrases in a way that makes them concrete and that is just not the way that they were understood. Add to that, this passage is a parable and not a concrete description of the event.

If the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible, then we can look to the Bible for the methodology that we need to understand the Bible.

What are the phrases that make this passage tough? The key phrase "you don't know the day or the hour" seems to be the central point of this parable. But day and hour of what? We have to go to the wider context to see what Jesus is talking about.

The scene appears to be judgment:

Mat 25:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
Mat 25:32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
Mat 25:33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
...
Mat 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
...
Mat 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

This is frequently read as a description of the judgment at the end of time. Particularly taken the phrases "eternal fire" and "eternal punishment".

There is another possible way of viewing these passages, though. They could describe the judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. This was taken by the early Christians as proof that Jesus was on the throne, just as the book of Daniel had described.

The ten virgins

Finding the historical center

This passage causes me much difficulty when I try to find its historical center. By that I mean, Jesus referring to something future from Him, but is it past, present or future to us?

If it is describing something in the past, then there are lessons to learn from this, but only if we are the sort of people who will listen to the lessons that the past teaches us.

If it is present, then we sure better be paying attention to what it says.

If it is future, then is it in a future that I need to be concerned about or one that is too far distant to really affect my life.

The idea that this may be describing the present or very near future is what the Tim LaHaye "Left Behind" books are banking on. This way of viewing the Bible is something that I am quite familiar with since I came to the Christian faith in the midst of a group of people who were very apocalyptic minded. This was at the height of the Jesus people movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The group I was a part of read the Bible as if it were a newpaper. The events of the day were clearly fulfillment of the Bible, for us. For the early days of my life as a Christian, there was a great concern about passages like these ones. We saw them describing us and our generation.

When we read this passage, we saw ourselves as being like the five virgins that were prepared for the bridegroom to come. We were in eager anticipation that Jesus would be coming shortly. We saw the reat of the church as slumbering while we saw ourselves as ready.

We had been taught that if the Bible was true, Jesus would return in 1981. When Jesus did not come in 1981, many of us fell away from the faith. This way of viewing passages like this was deadly to the faith of many.

For others, like myself, we dug deeper into the faith in the years before 1981 and we were not unprepared for a long wait. If anything this passage is saying that the time will seem so long that everyone will fall asleep.

Lectionary Text for week ending 11-6-2005

Matt 25:1-13 The Ten Virgins (NASB)

"Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
"Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent.
"For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them,
but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps.
"Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.
"But at midnight there was a shout, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'
"Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps.
"The foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'
"But the prudent answered, 'No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.'
"And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.
"Later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord, open up for us.'
"But he answered, 'Truly I say to you, I do not know you.'
"Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.

Experiencing God

A group of the ladies at our church completed the book Experiencing God this past summer and had good things to say about it.

I've started a BLOG to document my own journey through the Experiencing God materials. It's at http://experiencinggodgroup.blogspot.com.

Kingdom Principles

Jesus lays out the principles of Servant Leadership in this text.

He starts with the obvious negative examples and then proceeds to tell the disciples how they should act.

It appears in this text that the Pharisees set themselves up as judges over the religious conduct of Israel but they were unwilling to help those who are really in need of help. The Pharisees were quick to criticized anyone who did not conform to their idea of law keeping. They went to exagerated lengths in order to show their own holiness including wearing clothes that really made the point of who they were.

The disciples of Jesus should not be characterized in this way. In every way they are to be unlike the Pharisees. This is similar to the Word of Moses to Israel about not behaving like the surrounding nations when the children of Israel came into the promised land. They are not to take the titles that the Pharisees took. They are not to wear the exagerated clothing. They are not to put burdens on the backs of others, but are to life these burdens from their backs.

Servant Leadership Principles

Matt 23:-12
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying:

"The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
"They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.
"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.
"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
"But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
"Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

The Wright Apocalyptic View

Or, The Past May Really Be the Future

The apocalyptic is where N. T. Wright may be hardest to follow for many readers who are not used to a more realized eschatology.

What does all of that mean?

When the New Testament writers are writing about the future, is that future one that is mostly in the near future or in the far future? When Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, for instance, was he describing the destruction of the temple that happened in 70 AD or was it some future rebuilt temple that will be destroyed once again (in the distant future)? When Jesus spoke of the judgment that would come on "this generation" did He really mean "that [future] generation"?

The view of those who hold to a realized eschatology is that the future described in most of the New Testament verses is that of 70 AD. In particular, the events described are the destruction of the temple by the Roman General Titus and his army. Most Christians today would be surprised to know that for most of Church history these texts have been understood as historically fulfilled.

Reading the New Testament texts carefully it is hard to escape the force of this position. When the Synoptic Gospel writers describe the destruction of Jerusalem they talk about the enemy surrounding the city walls and building a siege ramp (Luke 19:43-44). This makes absolutely no sense in modern warfare. The city walls of Jerusalem today mostly house the ancient city with the modern city sprawling around the surrounding area for miles. There is no need to build a ramp today since one tank could easily knock down the walls. A literal reading of the text would suggest that Jesus was talking about the events of the first century, not some later rebuilt temple.

The primary source materials for understanding the destruction are the writings of Josephus which have an extreme amount of data in them when they are compared with other historical events. This may be no accident. Perhaps the best explanation for the preservation of Josephus is the significance of his writings to the New Testament itself.

This view is also known as preterism and has several varieties ranging from "partial" preterist (Wright seems to be in this camp) to "consistent" preterists. The consistent preterist sees all New Testament prophecy as fulfilled in the past.