community

originally posted April 10, 2007

The word community is popular among people of faith. It signifies a common identity, a common purpose. People, living together in harmony and peace, sharing their lives and dreams together.

One may venture into the Holy Scripture and see such demonstrations of community as early Christians “… began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need (Acts 2:45 NASB). “

People were taken care of. Their needs were met. But is this all?

To understand what community should be, you must understand the purpose of it. Its purpose is not to become a binding interpretive authority over Scripture. It is not to bring peace on earth. It is not just to meet superficial needs. It is to build up Christian people in the faith under the headship of Christ, for

“we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Eph. 4:15-16 NASB).”

Let us build each other up, help each other grow and work together in unity under the headship of Christ, where true community lives.

Lectio Divina

It seems that the phrase or practice "Lectio Divina" is gaining ground among many evangelical Christians in recent times. I personally became more acquainted with this practice while working in Public Relations at a library in Indiana, about 4 years ago, by a former Church of the Brethren (not Grace Brethren) women turned Catholic. She described it eloquently as the ruminating prayer of a word or phrase in Scripture until it settles down within you and becomes part of you; then God becomes part of you.

Is this definition accurate? If so, is this practice Biblical? Just recently while looking for adult Sunday school concepts, I stumbled across (incidentally this stumble became the motivator for this post) a Baptist article favorable to the practice of Lectio Divina that confirmed the common knowledge that this is an ancient catholic practice preserved through the ages, and he suggested that it is a form of spiritual reading in which the goal is transformation, not information. He too confirmed the blessings of letting even one word resonate in the heart, "savoring each word" and letting it "ruminate" in your mouth. He suggests that each reader and prayer "listen for the word or phrase that is most ‘alive’ to you." He goes on to suggest that one allow God to speak through that word, paying attention to the images and feelings that word brings.

This focus on words isolated from context being used to receive revelation from God has spurred many to claim the practice as Catholic at best and Eastern Mysticism at worst, yet, in spite of these uses, many others claim that there is nothing wrong with the practice, that it is not mystical in any way or form, and it is not to be limited to one word or phrase. They also claim that it is merely a way to be transformed and not "modernist" in one's approach to Scripture... that it is a way of "meditation" that is purely Biblical, and any connection to Eastern thought is by way of the fact that at least the Biblical writers were merely an ancient Eastern Oriental (not Oriental in its modern usage) people.

So let us consider what meditation is in the Scriptures. Consider the quotes below:

I will meditate on Your precepts,
And contemplate Your ways (Ps. 119:15 nkjv)."

But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night (Ps. 1:2 nkjv)."

In these quotes there seems to be a focus not on isolated words or thoughts, yet on the very ways and laws of God, which would have, history attests, in the ancient Hebrew mind required a lifetime of devoted study with the mind. So it is quite possible if not certain that if Lectio Divina is attributed to a Catholic practice of the rumination of one isolated word regardless of context and informative pursuit, and if this appeals and is not inconsistent with the Eastern mystical practice of emptying the mind, then the practice, regardless of how it is done, by name quickly becomes a distraction to a true Biblical meditation.

The response.

Why not choose to forsake the ancient practices of religious Christians who we share very little similarity with (namely, the practice of Lectio Divina and the use of its name), and take on the practices of thoughtful and studious meditation which was the practice of the Ancient Hebrew people God used to bring us His Word, and let that in depth study of His Word become a basis for our Transformation in Him.

Blog

I have decided that it is time to merge my two blogs, going from the general to the more specific. Those very few (5 or 6) people who have paid attention to my theology blog will be most satisfied at my change of approach :) My goal will remain; however, general in that I will speak on issues, rather than personalities.

Cultural Mandate and Premillenial Theology

originally posted on another blog 30 June 2009

The term "Cultural Mandate," often associated with leaders such at Chuck Colson and the late D. James Kennedy1 , is vastly becoming a topic of discussion among all Christians of various theological persuasions. In short its very concept and exhortation is that we are to redeem both creation and culture for the Lord, creating transformational pieces of scholarship, art and cultural communication; and it seems to be argued based on the reformed doctrine of common grace, coupled with the command given to Adam found in Gen. 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth (nkjv)." In addition, it finds its reasoning in the many commands in Scripture to take care of the widows and orphans (a careful study of who these widows and orphans were may be in order).

So, the question arises: Is this reformed and slightly dominionist leaning concept consistent with traditional premillenial theology (even historical premillenialism)? Probably not. Though Israel was and we today are commanded to consider and care for the orphans and widows (Jas. 1:27), there is no question the overall sense of the Gospel is christ Crucified for our individual sins (Eph. 2), which leads as a result love for the saints (Col. 1:4). And though the Bible speaks of reconciliation of creation through Christ's sacrifice (Col. 1:20), this reconciliation is merely a repositioning, for the redemption does NOT come until Christ's kingdom, the new heaven and earth and our glorification - all of which will NOT come before Christ's return (Rom. 8:18-30, 2 Pet. 3).

Further, in Hebrews 2:5-8 (esp. note v. 8) we have a clear indication, based on the Messianic and eschatological context of the preceding chapter and relevant Psalm quotes, that the subjection of creation will not be realized until His coming again in His kingdom.

Application? Should we care for the environment? Yes, out of a mode of stewardship. Should we care for widows and orphans? Yes, out of heart of love tranformed by God's grace. Should we do good things to our enemies, and show good to our culture? Yes, as a way to live out the spiritual kingdom implications of God's sovereign rule in our hearts now, while we wait for the redemption of culture after He returns.

endnote:
1. (www.coralridge.org, "Dr. Kennedy’s energetic commitment to both evangelism and cultural renewal is demonstrated by four organizations he founded: Coral Ridge Ministries, Evangelism Explosion International, Knox Theological Seminary, and Westminster Academy."

Yeshiva

originally posted 26 February 2009

Traditionally, the method of learning for Jewish men from the time of Christ until as recent as the late 1800's followed in a very general sense the yeshiva model. It symbolizes (and in some cases still is) a next step beyond domestic education, a place where young men would learn specifically the Torah, but eventually also the Talmud (Rabbinic interpretation after the time of Christ-Messiah during the early Christian Era), the entire Tanakh (the Torah-Law, the Neviim-Prophets, and the Ketuvim-Writings) and various Midrash (commentary) as well.

The brightest and most promising of students would eventually move beyond the "school" and train directly under a local Rabbi in a type of apprenticeship. Eventually many would become ordained Scholars by the local Rabbi (s) after suitable competence was achieved, rather than a prescribed set of courses. The yeshiva model (especially for youth) was generally under the leadership of a local teacher, as the school was an extension of the local synagogue, continuing as the Jews went back into Diaspora (dispersion).

The underlying concept of the Jewish educational system at large involved Rabbinic oversight and mentoring - local community training - with students literally sitting at the feet of scholars (Ac. 22:3), engaging in local class or local small group interactive learning and practice. For the Jew, Knowledge and Service went hand in hand, as the study of the Law has always been the highest of all prizes, never (for the noble-minded) engaged in to prepare for a profession or money building enterprise, but for the sake of learning the wisdom of God and teaching others alone.

Their studies, did; however, differ from other Eastern philosophical paradigms in that their focus was not mystical or extremely Pietist in seeking an overtly experiential or existential system, much like Jewish Kabbalah, as many modern commentators claim. Rather, a mere balance of simple knowing and serving was sought.

This begs the question: In searching out the Hebraic roots of Christianity, should this affect modern Christian practice and discipleship (learning), even to the extent of leadership training? I believe it should, considering that Jesus, the apostles, and the early followers of Jesus were all Jewish, and they modeled (though unofficially) this form of grassroots local congregation type training, leading us to consider the impact on modern discipleship paradigms used today.

For, so many rely solely on distant Colleges, Universities or Seminaries to provide the framework for theological understanding and leadership training, rather than finding learning and discipleship in their local communities. This leads to a disastrously high number of under-prepared and easily swayed minds attempting to shepherd congregations, having been unintentionally swayed to various theological interpretations and convenient novel ideas by professors and scholars unaware of the relative lack of understanding these young (or seasoned) believers really hold.

Does this mean that local fellowship based studies, if modeled after Jewish tradition, should replace academic higher learning? Not at all, but it should develop a level of training, wisdom and even scholarship among youth and adults that will allow for traditional (a relative term) college and seminary education to become a capstone of one's learning, rather than the foundation.

Psychology, Sociology or Theology?

originally posted 09 October 2008

All theological movements within Christianity are reactionary to some degree, but many recent movements seem to react far more against abuses of people, than abuses of doctrine, making sociology the authority, rather than truth.

These prevalent sociological themes and ideas in many current movements are summarized in popular works such "They Like Jesus but not the Church," by Dan Kimball, "Blue Like Jazz," by Donald Miller and "Everything Must Change," by Brian McLaren.

Now, many valid questions are being raised as to whether the church of the last couple of centuries have adequately lived out their faith, but does it warrant the type of reformation emotional response that is apparent today? Is a complete reworking of the traditional church necessary, filled with rhetoric of frustration? Is the traditional Church needing the same level of reworking as the Catholic church in the days of Luther, Knox and Calvin? Or, is the answer much simpler.

Why have some, such as A.W. Tozer, been able to differentiate between the current praxis of believers versus the praxis outlined in the Bible, without using consistent language of redefinition?

Why are some able to maintain some of the organization the Bible commends, but recognize important shepherding and nurturing still needing to take place, while others in these new movements communicate in extreme "change rhetoric," giving up on the traditional church altogether?

The issue and cause: An emotional response. I believe this is truly the dividing line. Many following some of the newer movements have not been legitimately cared for, have not legitimately healed from past or present wounds, and thus, have not felt comfortable re-acculturating back into the church life they grew up in. Not having their needs met, they have turned to ancient Catholic and Eastern Orthodox experiential rites, rather than leaning on Scripture alone to aid in gaining guidance from the Holy Spirit. It is a spiritual issue of counseling in which these believers need to be walked through their emotional response and find a standard (scripture) in which to proceed from.

On the contrary, many writers who have experienced healing, have been able to lay their church practice alongside scripture, have been able to maintain the historic orthodox doctrines of the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture (yes this is historic), salvation by grace through faith, the atonement, the tri-unity of God, the virgin birth, the second coming, the eternal punishment of the lost and the eternal hope of the redeemed. And, they have been able to lay all their beliefs alongside a plain sacred text. How?

An answer: The all powerful God, using His Spirit, humble shepherds and faithful believers confidently speaking the truth of the word of God, while living the timeless principles out entirely, and loving their fellow brethren. This was lived out by many in the reformation, many in the Anabaptist movement, and many in fundamentalist and conservative evangelical circles today.

Where do we go from here: We take a few steps back, recognize the causes of dysfunction and disillusionment, and work within our imperfect but holy church communities spreading the gospel and equipping others, preaching the whole counsel of God and guarding in love the church from false doctrine, without railing insults on those who have gone before us.

"And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears (Acts 20:25-31 nkjv)."

Expository reading, the Bible and the human mind

originally posted 26 September 2008

Psychologists, literary scholars and educators have all written and discussed on the importance of expository reading. Generally speaking, this is understood as reading for meaning, and is linked to the ability one has in reading documentation written for knowledge and understanding. It is the transfer of meaning, through reading, from a written source to the human mind.

In recent years, some theologians and specialists in various fields have considered how this discipline must be expanded to oral public reading, not just private research.

Dr. Wayne McDill, Professor of Preaching, Southeastern Baptist Seminary, gave an intriguing article posted on his Web site about the very idea of expository reading in the pulpit and church communities.

The idea is to renew the historical idea of reading accurately and clearly a given text so that one's mind will grasp the locus of meaning with as minimal human intervention as possible.

Biblically, it is interesting that Ezra read and translated accurately and clearly the law for quite some time, to an attentive people, while also providing exposition:

"3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law...

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

The focus on Ezra's exposition was most definitely the text itself, not on human wisdom, illustration or entertainment.

So where does that leave those of us charged with explaining and expounding the word of God today? I propose three key elements of application, primarily based on the presupposition of biblical authority and an inerrant text, (which is an important discussion for another time):

1. If one believes in the authority of the sacred biblical text, then reading large portions of scripture may be essential. This point has become key in my ministry, but as been almost universally ignored in evangelical protestant churches.

2. If one believes in the authority of the sacred biblical text, then reading that text accurately and in context is essential. This will require some familiarity with the ancient languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that underlie these texts, and a willingness to moderately emphasize grammatical forms in reading, so as to emphasize the authors intended meaning.

3. If one believes in the authority of the sacred biblical text, then accurate exposition of that text in context is essential.

Here is where an important clarification is pertinent, especially in light of current scholarly and community opinion that a precise meaning (to the point of propositional truth) of a sacred text cannot be adequately ascertained. The sense of the point of a text can and should be found, and a general reading knowledge of the scholarly languages rather than a supposed fluency (fluency in an ancient language is always supposed) is valuable to find and communicate that precise point, but not to the extent of obsessing over every grammatical ending or construction. Rather, it is to give the thrust of the meaning.

My hope and desire is that a more proper respect to the sufficient word of God may be found in the form of presentation that is given to preaching and reading of the Scripture.

culture

http://theologyexplained.blogspot.com/