My Other Hat
Many of my readers here know me as a Ph.D. student in biblical theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS). In fact, I started and continue this blog in order to write about and discuss my studies, primarily concerning the church (or ecclesiology).
But, what you might not know is that I’m also a web developer. In fact, I have been working in software development for over 25 years, and I’ve been working in web development for over 7 years.
Currently, I work full time as a web developer for SEBTS.
Also, I am one of the owners/developers for FullThrottle Development. We primarily design web sites, applications, and WordPress plugins for small businesses and non-profit organizations. If you need some help with your web site, let us know. We’d love to help you. Or, send our info to a friend who needs help… we would definitely appreciate it! (And, you may even win the “Crazy Referrals!” promotion that we’re currently running.)
If anyone is interested, I’ll list some of the WordPress plugins that I use on this site.
Without vision…
The famous proverb (Proverbs 29:18) is often used to justify a church leader setting the agenda for the whole church. I’ve always thought that was a misuse of that proverb.
Now, I’m glad to read that I’m not the only person who is concerned with this translation. It seems that Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought this translation (and the related practice) was detrimental to the church and idolatrous. I know! Strong language, isn’t it!
But, you don’t have to trust me on this. You can read Bonhoeffer’s words in a post on “unlikely christians” called “Without Vision the Community Flourishes?”
Of course, if God doesn’t communicate his vision for his church through a church leader, then how does he communicate his vision to the church?
Dave Black is reading Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians
IÂ love the Greek church fathers (haven’t started reading the Latin fathers in Latin yet). I’m glad that I’m not the only one.
Dave Black admits that he’s been reading Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians. The evidence is here on his blog (Friday, December 4, 2009 at 5:10 pm).
By the way, if you haven’t read Polycarp’s letter, you should. Here’s an online English translation. And here’s an only version of the Greek text of Polycarp’s letter.
The pic of Polycarp’s letter on Dave’s blog just happens to be of my favorite section of the letter. I wrote about it in my post called “Polycarp to Presbyters.”
Experimenting in Different Ways of Meeting Together?
Guy at “the M blog” tells a story about helping a church experience a different way of meeting together in a post called “Isn’t it time we gave the church back to Jesus?” After being invited to “preach their Sunday evening message,” Guy led the church in a time of mutual teaching and encouragement. After describing some of the things they did together, he recalls:
By then we had gone well over the “30 minutes” allotted sermon time, but nobody was eager to break up and go home. After TWO HOURS of open sharing and Spirit-led interaction, I turned the “service” back over to the pastor of the church. He stood, thanked me (didn’t he mean the Holy Spirit?) for leading them in a most “interesting” evening. Everyone was then asked to rearrange the chairs back into rows. The offering was collected, and the pastor announced that next week they would resume their regular message series. What we had just experienced was simply an interesting Sunday night special program, but was clearly not the norm for the church to continue to meet in this fashion.
In this post, I’m not as concerned about the things that Guy led the church in doing together that night. Instead, I would like us to consider something more general…
Is it good or bad for churches to experiment in different ways of meeting together?
Mutual Sanctification? Yep.
This gem is from Andy (“aBowden Blog“) in his post “Sanctification continued“:
Sanctification is not a solo deal. God intended it to occur in the midst of community. The assembly of believers is to be a place of mutual sanctification. “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual are to restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness†(Gal 6:1). Unfortunately, many churches lack the kind of depth necessary for this type of relationship. This takes more than just a Sunday morning meet and greet. But when beleivers are really serious about being conformed to the image of Christ, correction and confrontation will lovingly be given and received.
Unfortunately, many Christians in American churches don’t have more than “Sunday morning meet and greet.” (Adding Sunday evening and Wednesday evening is little help in the relationships department.) So… what does that say about sanctification?
Fences Make Good Neighbors – Part 2
In Part 1 of this two-part series, I pointed my readers to Lionel’s (from “A Better Covenant“) post called “There’s Fellowship and Then There’s Fellowship.” Lionel suggests that a three-tier fellowship (some closer than others) will create or demonstrate unity among believers.
My desire in this series is to consider the boundaries to these different levels of fellowship or relationship. At the end of my previous post, I asked these questions:
Do we set the boundaries [of fellowship or relationship between us and other people]? Should we set the boundaries? Do other people set the boundaries? Should we allow other people to set the boundaries? Are there boundaries beyond our control? How do these boundaries aid or hinder unity among the church?
To begin with, we should recognize that some boundaries are completely beyond our control. For example, I have never met most of the people that are alive today in the world. Therefore, I cannot have a relationship with them at any level. However, I believe that according to Scripture the love of God compels me to be ready to begin a relationship with anyone that God brings into my life.
Also, some people will not allow you to build a relationship with them. We cannot control what other people do or don’t do. We have neighbors that we’ve tried to get to know. We’ve invited them to our house, invited them to their favorite restaurant, and talked with them while we’re all outside. But, they do not want to get to know us better. We can’t control this. However, once again, we can be open and ready to build a relationship with them (and others) whenever the opportunity arises.
For the most part, our concern should not be with those relationships that are “fenced” out due to reasons beyond our control. What about other relationships?
First, there are legitimate reasons for refusing to have fellowship (or build a relationship) with someone. We see some of these in Scripture. For example, if someone calls himself (or herself) a brother (or sister) in Christ and yet lives a consistently immoral (and unrepentant) life, then we are to refuse to fellowship with them. As Paul says, “Do not even eat with that person.” Similarly, if someone denies the gospel, the deity or humanity of Christ, refuses to work to support him- or herself, or is acting divisive toward other believers, then we should refuse to fellowship with that person.
Are there other reasons to refuse fellowship with someone? This is the crux of the issue. Is it valid for us to choose whom to fellowship with and whom to refuse to build a relationship with based on other factors (that is, factors that are not listed in Scripture).
If someone were to suggest that race, economic status, educational level, ethnicity, or nationality were a reason for choosing to withhold fellowship (or refusing to build a relationship), most Christians would disagree. Yet, we often choose to withhold fellowship for other reasons. For the church today, the biggest reasons for withholding fellowship or choosing not to build a relationship would be organizational membership (“church membership”) and doctrinal differences, especially related to salvation and the end times.
Are these valid reasons for creating boundaries… either boundaries for starting relationships or allowing relationships to deepen?
At this point, I would argue that these are not valid reasons to withhold fellowship. However, I will also admit that I don’t know what it would look like to build relationships with those who differ from me in many of these areas. I welcome these types of relationships, primarily because I think they would be beneficial in helping me live for Christ. I also think that fellowship between people who are different from one another would better demonstrate to the world the love and acceptance of God in Christ Jesus.
So, what do you think? Besides the scriptural reasons that I listed, are there other valid reasons for withholding fellowship (or building deeper relationships) with someone? How do we decide what those valid reasons are? How do we decide that those reasons are valid?
Fences Make Good Neighbors – Part 1
The title of this post comes from a poem by Robert Frost called “Mending Wall.” But, even before Frost included the line in his famous poem, “Fences make good neighbors” was a 17th century proverb. In this post and the next, I’m going to consider the “fences” that keep us from having fellowship or building stronger relationships with other people.
The impetus for this two-part series was a very good post (and following discussion) by Lionel Woods (at “A Better Covenant“) called “There’s Fellowship and Then There’s Fellowship.” In his post, Lionel recognizes that there are different levels of fellowship and relationship. He suggests that these three tiers of fellowship can help us live in unity. Here is his description of the three tiers of fellowship:
I think approaching the body from a three-tier circle may be beneficial for us to maintain unity and promote the oneness that we are to promote to be a witness of Christ’s work in the world. So we have the outer circle. These are loose but still connected relationships we have with Christians, we deal with them on a less intimate level; however, this interaction is not superficial. We serve them help them, encourage them and even correct them, but because we understand that they are in the outer tier we understand that their are limits we will not cross. This may be Jesus with many of His disciples.
Then we move to the second tier this may, but not limited, those we actually go to church with on a weekly basis, we sing with them, we go to Sunday School with them, we may be involved with outreach with them, from time to time we may hook up outside of the weekly fellowship, but there is no expectation to this day to day gathering. These people we see more and are involved a little more, sort of like Jesus with the 70. He sent them out, often times they would travel with Him, but they were not like the 12.
That leads to the inner circle or the third tier. Here we find our closest confidants. These people stay over night with us, watch our children, no are spending habits, they know all of our flaws and cover them with grace. These people can do great danger to us so this relationship takes much grace and love. These are the relationships that hurt like when Judas kisses Jesus on the cheek. This is Paul and Timothy here. These relationships just aren’t based on our like faith but an undeniable connection and love. These are those we see ourselves growing old with.
In response, I asked Lionel what or who defines these three levels of fellowship?I mean, it is certainly true that we have deeper relationships with some, lesser relationships with others, and very little relationship with others. But, what filters do we use to decide whether or not someone is in level one or level three, or whether we would even allow someone to increase to a different level?
These boundaries (“fences” to use Frost’s proverb) define who is in level 1, who is in level 2, and who is in level 3. So, the boundaries are very, very important.
Do we set the boundaries? Should we set the boundaries? Do other people set the boundaries? Should we allow other people to set the boundaries? Are there boundaries beyond our control? How do these boundaries aid or hinder unity among the church?
I’m going to attempt to answer these questions in the next post, but for now, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Love is the command; the command is love
Dave Black makes the following statement (concerning 1 John) on his blog (Tuesday, November 24, 8:17 am):
The study of love and its ethics of obedience remains very much on my personal agenda, and I have not yet slaked my thirst for the brilliant analysis offered by John. Love, for John, is the transference of one’s loyalties from the present kingdom of man to the coming kingdom of God. Love binds us to Jesus Christ and then thrusts out into the world for whom Christ died, back into the darkness, back into real relationships with real pain. Love is not fully Christian unless it is love for the world.
As John says (for example, see 2 John 5-6), the command from God is to love one another, and love one another is God’s command. We obey God when we love others.
But, what does it mean to love others? Our understanding of love – at least the kind of love that God desires from us and works through us – is the same kind of love that God demonstrated toward us – going, giving, serving, humble, sacrificing love. This is how we know what love is, and this is the kind of love that God works through us.
What about other kinds of love? Well, they may be good in some circumstances, but affection or warm feelings are not God’s love. In fact, even professed love is lacking unless it is accompanied by going, giving, serving, sacrificial action.
Its easy to talk about love and to study love and even to teach or preach about love. Its harder to love. But, love is the command.
Translation
My friend Adam (from “adamic“) has recently started translating Colossians again. He also started translating Jonah. I think this is a great idea, so I’m going to borrow it. Now, obviously, Adam didn’t come up with this idea, so its not like he has a copyright on translating Scripture. 🙂
Seriously, I’ve decided to translate paragraph by paragraph through a book. I’m going to start tomorrow with a shorter book (2 John). I’ll probably translate one or two other shorter books before trying to tackle a longer book. I plan to post one translation post per week, probably on Saturday. (The first post will be tomorrow.)
I encourage your comments and questions about my translation.
Gifting vs. Office
Three years ago, I was attending the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington D.C. I attended a presentation by Harold Hoehner on the topic of spiritual gifting vs. office. In response, I wrote a blog series describing and interacting with Hoehner’s view. (“Gifting vs. Office,” “Gifting vs. Office 2,” “Gifting vs. Office 3,” and “Gifting vs. Office 4.”) (By the way, I don’t like the term “office” when used in connection with the church. But, Hoehner used the term, so I used it in my series.) It’s interesting to see how some of my views and terminology has changed over the last three years. Here is that series:
————————————————————-
This is the first series of posts inspired by papers or conversations at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting this year. One of the first presentations that I heard was Harold W. Hoehner’s “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” (If you can find this paper online, please let me know.) Apart from the provocative title, the content provided many opportunities for discussion. Hoehner’s premise was that we must not confuse spiritual gifting with office. Now, while I do not like the term “office”, I will use it for this discussion. His conclusion was that pastoring and teaching are both spiritual gifts, not offices. Since the Holy Spirit gifts different believers with different gifts, He may – and probably does – endow women with the gift of pastoring-teaching.
This series will center around the differences between gifting by the Spirit and office within the church. Is there a difference? Should someone holding a certain office always have certain gifts? Should someone with certain gifts always hold a certain office? If you think of other questions, please add them in the comments.
————————————————————-
Office
In Hoehner’s presentation at ETS (“Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher”), he made a distinction between gifting by the Holy Spirit and holding an office in the church (Remember, I do not like the term “office”, but I’m using it here because Dr. Hoehner used it in his presentation.)
Hoehner suggested that an office can be recognized in Scripture when there are qualifications for holding that office. Therefore, he sees three distinct offices:
- Apostle (qualifications given in Acts 1:15-26)
- Elder/Bishop-overseer (qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9)
- Deacon (possibly deaconess) (qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3:8-13)
Hoehner did not like to use the term “pastor” for the office of elder/bishop, because he says that “pastoring” is a Spiritual gift, not an office. However, it is interesting to note that he sees “apostle” as both an office and a gift, and “deacon” as an office and a gift (since “deacon” acutally means “servant”).
Are these “offices” in the church? Are there other “offices”? Is there a better term than “office”?
————————————————————-
At ETS this year, Harold Hoehner presented a paper titled “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” He argued that there is a difference between gifting and office. Scripture designates an “office” (Remember, I do not like that term. I am using it because Hoehner used it.) by listing qualifications for the office. He recognizes apostle, elder/bishop, and deacon (possibly deaconness) as scriptural offices.
On the other hand, Hoehner argued that gifts are not given based on qualifications. Instead, gifts are given by the Holy Spirit to all believers. He recognizes all of items listed in Eph 4:11, 1 Cor 12, and Romans 12 to be spiritual gifts. Any believer may exercise his or her spiritual gift as sovereignly endowed by the Holy Spirit. According to Hoehner, Eph 4:11 lists individuals who are exercising their spiritual gifts, not offices. Therefore, any believer may have the gifting to operate as an apostle (not as the office of an apostle though), a prophet, an evangelist, or a pastor-teacher (not as the office of an elder/bishop though).
Is Hoehner correct that there is a difference between gifting and office? Could any believer possess any spiritual gifts? Is there any scriptural evidence that some categories of believers (women, for instance) will never be granted certain spiritual gifts (pastoring/teaching, for instance)?
————————————————————-
So far, I have attempted to explain Harold Hoehner’s view as he presented it in this paper given at ETS: “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” Here is his argument in summary:
- Many misunderstandings (his estimate was 95%, I think) about women in ministry are caused by a blurring of the distinctions between spiritual gifts and offices.
- Scripture gives qualifications for offices. Qualifications are given for apostles, elder/ bishops, and deacons/deaconesses.
- Scripture does not give qualifications for gifts. Gifts are given according to the will of God through the Holy Spirit.
- Since there are no qualifications given for the list in Ephesians 4:11 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers), pastor-teachers are individuals endowed with spiritual gifts, not offices.
- Therefore, even if women cannot hold a certain office, they can be pastor-teachers if they are so gifted.
To be honest, I have no desire to discuss women in ministry. Instead, I would like to discuss his distinction between spiritual gifts and offices.
First, my understanding of spiritual gifts seems to differ slightly from Hoehner’s understanding. Spiritual gifts are given by the Holy Spirit, through believers, for the benefit of others (1 Cor. 12:7). Scripture does not indicate that believers are endowed with gifts for life, or that believers can recognize their particular gifts. The “name” of the gifts (i.e. serving, leading, teaching), seem to come from the benefit given to others. In other words, someone has the gift of teaching because what the Spirit does through them teaches others. It is possible that the Spirit could use the exact same actions/words to encourage others at the same time. Therefore, the gift is recognized as teaching for group 1, while it is recognized as encouragment for group 2. Yet, the Spirit is working through the same person’s words.
If this view is correct, then we should not emphasize that a person is “exercising” a certain spiritual gift. The person does not control whether or not, or how, the Spirit decides to work through them. Instead, as Peter says, the person should speak and/or act according to the will of God, and allow the Spirit to use those words/actions as He chooses.
I do recognize that there are people within Scripture that are called “teachers,” “prophets,” “servants,” etc. However, in my view, this is the recognition of others that these are the primary ways that the Spirit works through those individuals. Thus, for one known as a “teacher,” the Spirit normally uses that person’s words to teach others; therefore, other people recognize this and refer to him/her as a “teacher.”
This is illustrated in 1 Cor. 12-14. In 1 Cor. 12:29, Paul asks the question, “Are all prophets?”, expecting a negative answer: No, all are not prophets. Thus, Paul recognizes that, for certain believers, the Spirit regularly uses their words as words of prophecy. But, the Spirit does not normally work this way through everyone. Then, in 1 Cor. 14:31, Paul states, “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.” In this verse, Paul recognizes that, even though the Spirit may not normally use someone’s words as prophecy, that potential is always there, because the Spirit chooses how He will endow gifts according to His will.
I realize that this may seem pedantic. However, I think the distinction is important. Which is important: 1) I should teach others, or 2) I should speak as the Spirit leads me, even if no one “learns” from my words. I am not responsible for how others receive my words or actions; however, I am responsible for obeying God is everything that I do and say.