You know there is no place in Scripture that says a ‘pastor’ must baptize someone.

Image via Wikipedia

Image by Nutmeg Designs via Flickr

In college I took a class on Christian Ethics.  At the time I was deep in the “Reformed stage” of my journey, so I read a lot of the classic writers in that arena.

I decided to center my final paper around a quote I found quite compelling:

Grace is the essence of theology and gratitude is the essence of ethics.  - G. C. Berkouwer

At the time, and for many years, this made good sense.

Until now.

Just last night, I recalled this quote and realized that  it didn’t seem to fit any longer.

So, I propose a revision:

Faithfulness is the essence of theology and unity is the essence of ethics.

In short, this is a paradigm shift from the traditional historic Protestant way of thinking.

The core of theology is understood to be both God’s faithfulness toward us and our faithfulness to Him and to one another through community.  The core of ethics is unity, primarily with each other (the “One Anothers” of the New Testament) and obliquely with the world at large as well as with Him and in His reign over all.

Thoughts?

Image via Wikipedia

Feeling a bit like Jude today…I was going to write a post on hermeneutics and methodology, but was a bit taken by a link shared by a good friend of mine regarding the death of  North Korea’s “Dear Leader” [gack!!!] Kim Jong-Il.

As one born and raised in America, all to often I take for granted the blessings I have just by living in this country.  As messed up as it is, even now, it is far and away a better place to live than many countries where fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are tortured and killed for their faith.

Such is the case in North Korea.

A quick word association would be about all most Americans could produce in a discussion on North Korea.

Kim Jong-Il = Bad!

But why?

Take a look at the videos on this page from Justin Taylor’s blog regarding Kim Jong-Il’s Diabolical World.  Here are some really good reasons why “Diabolical” is quite fitting.

In many respects, these Christians can better relate to Paul’s intent when writing to the Galatians,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (emphasis added)

And in writing to the Romans,

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness…

Here in the United States, we simply cannot relate to true persecution from the state, and so, we have over the generations tended to bend and morph the gospel into a personal event as opposed to a kingdom event…a present event over a future event.

Indeed there are very real personal aspects to the gospel, but we miss the point if we fail to see the story in its original setting and incorporate its ramifications into our lives in the present.  The early Christians saw the bigger picture of the establishment of the kingdom of God over all – that was the “good news” they embraced and faithfully hoped for in spite of a very real,  flourishing and torturous Roman empire.

Paul encouraged the Roman Christians to faithfully stand in opposition to a worldly empire and to be a “concrete demonstration of the intentions of God.” (Perriman, The Future of the People of God pg. 60)

As difficult as it is to write, the illustration can clearly be made for this present generation.  Those Christians dying for their faith in North Korea are an example of God’s intentions.  Indeed, Perriman pushes the idea even more fully when he writes,

The churches recapitulate in their own existence, in the present time, the story of Jesus’s suffering and vindication as a foreshadowing or guarantee of the future victory over pagan opposition and the public, oikoumene-wide vindication of the family of Abraham – when, in the language of the Son of Man community, those who have suffered with Jesus will be brought with him before the throne of the Ancient of Days to receive ‘dominion and glory and a kingdom’ (Dan. 7:14) (The Future of the People of God pgs. 100-101)

So, as I looked at the videos about the atrocities in North Korea, as sad as it was and continues to be, it assured me of the defeat of this evil empire.  For, according to the Apostle Paul, the church stands as a witness to the fact that God has given Jesus the nations as an inheritance (Psalm 2:8) and His kingdom will defeat this present evil age.

Evil simply cannot prevail.  The Story will continue in the age to come…

God will repay each person according to what they have done.  To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.  But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.  There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.  For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:6-10 NIV)

Image via Wikipedia

Today, Alan Hirsch posted a quick quote from Richard Hays on FB:

Our habit of thinking of ministry as a ‘profession’ is likely to produce serious distortions in our conception of the church and our role within it ~ Richard B. Hays, 1 Cor.3:18-23

While this is crystal clear to me, I know many Christians simply do not see the distortion (see Part 1).  This just goes to show how deeply ingrained we are in our contemporary Western culture and how utterly out of touch we are with the culture of the early church.

There is a popular phrase that states “form follows function” meaning:

If an object has to perform a certain function, its design must support that function to the fullest extent possible. - Digital Web Magazine

In fact, the context in which this was taught was in a class on church planting.  And this makes perfect sense, the form follows the function; the design supports how the church works.  So, if we have professional ministers, the church structure, from the organizational chart all the way to the actual performance of ministry, in all practicality must serve the professional minster.

Yet, the “fail” is seen in the fact that there simply were no professional ministers, there was no hierarchy, and the design, the form, was quite different from what we have today.  This, then begs the question: If we notice this difference, how do we go about changing it?  How do we get back to the original intent?  How do we essentially allow for purposeful change that will benefit the church and in turn benefit society?  How do we return to a functional ecclesiology?

The answer begins with embracing and encouraging a ministry supported by the New Testament in which all are ministers and all have received gifts and empowerment by the Holy Spirit to serve as Christ here and now every day of the week at any given place on the planet…and maybe beyond!

Take a look at these passages: Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4; 1 Peter 4.

The church is the body, all having a part to play.  There are no professional ministers.

Now, there are indeed leaders, often called elders, but nowhere do we see these individuals taking over for the body.  Their function is to encourage service – not to take it and to protect the body – not to control it.

Take a look at 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 for more on this.  Again, no professional here either.

So, in short, both the church and her leaders need to be willing to reevaluate the current system to see how functional or dysfunctional it really has become.

Related articles

• Toward A Functional Ecclesiology… (Part 1 of 2) (earlychurchstudies.wordpress.com)

An ol’ pal of mine, David Hayward, has done it AGAIN!

Yet another excellent cartoon with brief commentary!  (Throw him a bone and buy his book…kinda “The Far Side-esque” with a Christian bent!)

Here’s a list of 10 things we should know about the teaching of Jesus:

1. He spoke in stories, parables and riddles.
2. He usually answered questions with questions.
3. Even his most intimate disciples didn’t understand him.
4. He was frequently frustrated by our inability to comprehend him.
5. Those in authority who did understand him silenced him.
6. The rest who understood were marginal and are mostly forgotten.
7. No one wrote down what he said.
8. It wasn’t until years later that Paul et al tried to systematize him.
9. However, Paul et al didn’t systematize what he said, but his significance.
10. Church authorities rejected tons of Jesus material according to their theological perspective.

“The gospel of grace is the end of religion, the final posting of the CLOSED sign on the sweatshop of the human race’s perpetual struggle to think well of itself. For that, at bottom, is what religion is: man’s well-meant but dim-witted attempt to approve of his unapprovable condition by doing odd jobs he thinks some important Something will thank him for.
Religion, therefore, is a loser, a strictly fallen activity. It has a failed past and a bankrupt future. There was no religion in Eden and there won’t be any in heaven; and in the meantime Jesus has died and risen to persuade us to knock it all off right now.” – p. 166

In short, the gospel is the end of religion!

Image via Wikipedia

Isaiah 55:8 reads:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. (ESV)

Yesterday (Sept. 7, 2011 – Frank Pastore Show - KKLA) Francis Chan used this verse in a radio discussion with Frank while discussing his latest book Erasing Hell - a response to Rob Bell’s Love Wins.

His point was that while some may dislike the thought of hell, the Bible clearly teaches it and we need to realize that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts.

It immediately struck me that anyone could use this verse to make a point, seemingly shutting down the other side since, after all, they don’t know “God’s thoughts.”

I have two points to address regarding this.

1. What is the possibility that punishment in hell is more of a “human thought?”  It makes more sense to me to see Isaiah 55:8 as standing against what most humans would understand as the right thing to do, in this case punishment in hell.  Think about it, whole societies are based on penal systems and punishment for breaking the laws.  As such, “God’s thoughts” would entertain some notion of non-punishment that makes no sense to humanity.  More on that later…
2. Read Isaiah 55 in context and ask yourself which direction the chapter is leaning – toward judgment or toward mercy.  So, if toward mercy, then Isaiah is basically driving home the point that God’s love and mercy is so radical that we don’t get it…we think it should be paid for:

Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.  (Is. 55:1 ESV)

So, it seems to me that Francis Chan has it backwards…God’s thoughts are definitely not our thoughts.  So much so, that they just don’t support his claim that God’s thoughts are thoughts of eternal judgment…at least not in this case.

As an aside, I am about half way through Erasing Hell, so I’ll have a review of it shortly.  ;~)

I just HAD to post this up!

This comes from one of my Facebook friends, David Hayward who blogs over at nakedpastor.com!

I have come to realize that I have been taught how to read the Bible in several different and interesting ways in my lifetime.

In Junior High, my Lutheran school taught me to interpret the Bible according to Luther’s Small Catechism.

A local Calvary Chapel seemed to want to take the Bible literally, unless of course we were speaking about the book of Daniel or Revelation and end times prophecy, which seemed to be interpretation by current events. Later I would find that this could loosely be defined as Dispensationalism.

In college, I was taught a very specific technique: the Historical-Grammatical method.  Here the focus was on the historical background, culture, literary genre, grammar, syntax, and discourse analysis.

In seminary, I continued to develop my historical-grammatical skills, though in many ways I found myself pushing its limits and venturing out into seemingly uncharted territory.  It was here that I began to see that my tried and true hermeneutic didn’t seem to be the all-in-one tool that it was billed to be.

Since then, I have come to realize that there are many ways in which people interpret scripture.  Of course, not all of them can be right.  Just look at all the varied results!  Yet, I believe we must strive to do our best to understand what the Bible meant to the original audience and only then to discover what that means for us today.

In the very near future, I will outline where I am today with regard to interpreting the Bible and expand on the methods by way of investigating some current and popular debates surrounding Christians today.