The wisdom of mutual encouragement
The exhortation to mutual encouragement was wise: in isolation from fellow-believers each individual among them was more liable to succumb to the subtle temptations which pressed in from so many sides, but if they came together regularly for mutual encouragement the devotion of all would be kept warm and their common hope would be in less danger of flickering and dying. In isolation each was prone to be impressed by the specious arguments which underlined the worldly wisdom of a certain measure of compromise of their Christian faith and witness; in the healthy atmosphere of the Christian fellowship these arguments would be the more readily appraised at their true worth, and recognized as being so many manifestations of “the deceitfulness of sinâ€â€¦ [I]n a fellowship which exercised a watchful and unremitting care of its members the temptation to prefer the easy course to the right one would be greatly weakened, and the united resolution to stand firm would be correspondingly strengthened. (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991100–101)
Quote 2 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
Do not call yourselves Lutherans, call yourselves Christians. Has Luther been crucified for the world? -Martin Luther
Quote 1 from Your Church is Too Small
This week (March 14-20, 2010), I’m taking part in a blog tour of John H. Armstrong’s new book Your Church is Too Small. Armstrong begins each chapter with quotes from various writers throughout church history. Each day this week, I’m going to highlight one of those quotes.
Whoever tears asunder the Church of God, disunites himself from Christ, who is the head, and who would have all his members to be united together. -John Calvin
From independence to interdependence
Spiritual formation is concerned with facilitating spiritual change in people. People change most readily when they are in environments that foster change as they learn to live out their unique communal calling. Such environments supply both support and challenge, and participants accept community responsibility as a way of life. We think of being responsible for others and allowing others to care for us. There is a shift from independence to healthy interdependence. (James C. Wilhoit, Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered: Growing in Christ through Community (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 184.)
Provoking of one another to love and good works
David Peterson commenting on Hebrews 10:24-25:
It may be suggested from the syntax of Hebrews 10:25 that encouragement can be given to other Christians at the most basic level by not abandoning the assembly. Looking more positively at the benefits of Christian assembly, F.F. Bruce asserts that “every opportunity of coming together and enjoying their fellowship in faith and hope must be welcomed and used for mutual encouragement.” [F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1964, p. 253] However, remembering what was said above in connection with Hebrews 3:12-13 and Hebrews 5:12 it would seem that the writer intended such meetings to be opportunities for mutual teaching and exhortation. It is perhaps best in the context to render paraklountes more generally as “encouraging (one another),” but the provoking of one another to love and good works clearly demands more than just being present at the assembly and participating enthusiastically! (David G. Peterson, “The Ministry of Encouragement,” in God Who is Rich in Mercy. Ed. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986, p. 246) (italics in original)
Distinguishing types of love
We may love the beloved (1) for the sake of the beloved, (2) for our own sake, or (3) for the sake of a relationship we have with the beloved. I call these love relations (1) agape, (2) eros, and (3) philia. Thus, I distinguish agape, eros, and philia by the phrase “for the sake of.” The one for whose sake we love determines the kind of love we have. This distinction lies in our intention, in the meaning the act has for us, not in any results of the act. Thus, it may well be that in loving others we do the greatest good for ourselves. But if we love others in order to do the best for ourselves, we are not loving them for their sakes. If another act that was better for ourselves was available, we might abandon them and perform that act. We we love others as a way of fulfilling ourselves, this love of others is eros, not agape. (Edward Vacek, Love, Human and Divine: The Heart of Christian Ethics (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994), 157-58.)
Your Church Is Too Small
I just received another book in the mail: Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church by John H. Armstrong. Here is the blurb from the back cover:
In Your Church Is Too Small, John Armstrong shows that Jesus’ vision of Christian unity is for all of God’s people across social, cultural, racial, and denominational lines.
Too often, these words of Jesus from John 17:20-21 seem like an unreachable ideal:
“I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”
But Your Church Is Too Small encourages Christians to rely on God – Father, Son, and Spirit – as they unite in mission and demonstrate his character to a watching world. Such reliance entails both a deeper experience in the triune life of God and a connection to the church’s past.
This challenging narrative is a call to leave behind placing limits on Christ’s church – with small, fractured sectarian views – and embrace the motivating vision of a church that is unified and rooted in core orthodoxy.
I’m planning on taking part in the Your Church is Too Small blog tour, so I guess I should read this book before the one that I received over the weekend.
Unlearning Protestantism
Last weekend, I received a new book in the mail called Unlearning Protestantism: Sustaining Christan Community in an Unstable Age by Gerald Schlabach. This is the publisher’s blurb:
In this clearly written and insightful book, Gerald Schlabach addresses the “Protestant dilemma” in ecclesiology: how to build lasting Christian community in a world of individualism and transience. Schlabach, a former Mennonite who is now Catholic, seeks not to encourage readers to abandon Protestant churches but to relearn some of the virtues that all Christian communities need to sustain their communal lives. He offers a vision for the right and faithful roles of authority, stability, and loyal dissent in Christian communal life. The book deals with issues that transcend denominations and will appeal to all readers, both Catholic and Protestant, interested in sustaining Christian tradition and community over time.
I don’t know what to expect, but I’m looking forward to reading and reviewing it.
Your Kingdom Come
We’ve been studying Matthew for some time now… probably too long. It’s impossible to read Matthew without recognizing a focus on the Kingdom of God (Kingdom of Heaven). In fact, Jesus told his disciples to ask, “Your kingdom come…” What does this mean?
Concerning “The coming of the kingdom in the NT,” Goldsworthy writes:
Against the background of the OT expectations of the coming rule of God, the NT declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the bringer of the kingdom. While the proclamation of Jesus concerning the kingdom if not novel and is based firmly on OT antecedents, there are nevertheless some surprises. The prophets consistently present the ‘day of the Lord’ in terms of one coming. The gospel presents the Lord’s coming in at least three distinct but related ways.
1) The kingdom has come in Jesus. The meek servanthood of Jesus which leads eventually to his suffering and death, despite being liberally punctuated with demonstrations of power, prevented many from perceiving the nature of the kingdom’s coming…. Jesus was the kingdom in person.
2) The kingdom is coming to the people of God…. The reign/realm contrast is most obvious in this period because the subjects of the kingdom are not confined to any particular place. Even though they are gathered in fellowship as a church, the true, visible locus of the kingdom is at best ambiguous…
3) The kingdom will be consummated at Christ’s return. The third way in which the kingdom comes in the NT is the future or eschatological consummation.
Thus, the one coming of the Lord in the OT is shown to involve the coming of the end (the kingdom of God), in three ways: representatively for God’s people in Jesus of Nazareth; in them through the gospel and the Spirit; and finally with them at the consummation of the kingdom with the return of Jesus in glory to judge the living and the dead. (G. Goldsworthy, “Kingdom of God,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), p. 617-18)
I realize that this is a long quote, but I wanted to include all three ways that the NT focuses on the coming of the kingdom of God so that I could focus on one aspect – that is, the second aspect in which we’re living now.
As Goldsworthy writes, the kingdom of God is present now in an ambiguous way. Yes, the kingdom is represented/demonstrated when we gather together as a church, but our church meetings are not the extent of the coming of the kingdom today.
So, what part of our lives does the kingdom touch today? Every part. The “kingdom comes” at any point in our lives when we give up the reign (control) of our lives and submit to the reign of God through his Spirit.
Thus, his kingdom comes (or can come) when we gather together as a church, but also when we’re working, when we’re shopping, when we’re at home, when we’re talking or playing with our neighbors, when we’re at school… at any and every point in our lives.
Seeing his kingdom come begins with asking how we can best demonstrate God’s reign in our own lives in each situation that we find ourselves in… especially in contexts in which a kingdom response would not be a natural response… i.e., demonstrating love when we’ve been hurt or rejected, being patient when others are losing their cool, giving when we have nothing left, responding to harsh treatment/words with gentleness.
In other words, the kingdom comes when we allow the Spirit to produce his fruit in us, especially when the natural response would be different.
Of course, it can be beneficial to remember that Jesus introduced the kingdom and provided a way into the kingdom through his death, burial, and resurrection. It can also be beneficial to look forward to an eschatological (end) time when the kingdom response will be our natural response.
But, today, the kingdom comes when we allow God to reign in our lives in the many ambiguous events that happen every day. This is not about more rules or principles or anything like that. It’s about living eternal life today – living in the presence of Jesus – walking in the Spirit – abiding in Christ – or any of the other metaphors. It’s about recognizing the death of our natural inclinations and allowing the Spirit to live a true life through us.
Does acceptance make our beliefs illegitimate?
Recently, when reading about the Jewish influence on the early church, I came across this interesting paragraph:
For the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, however, the issue [of circumcision of Gentiles] was not so clear. The inferences were obvious to them; the ramifications were potentially damaging to the Jewish traditions. That God had poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles was amazing in its own right; but the subsequent inference that the Jewish believers would be required to accept (and even have table-fellowship) with the Gentile Christians without the latter having to undergo circumcision or to observe the law brought into question the legitimacy of the Torah. (Brad Blue, “The Influence of Jewish Worship on Luke’s Presentation of the Early Church,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1998) , p. 492)
An amazing thing happened in those early years after Pentecost (as recorded by Luke in Acts). God’s Spirit began to indwell people… and not just Jews, but Gentiles as well.
Before, Jews would only interact with Gentiles when required to (for instance, the Roman army or government officials) or when the Gentiles agreed to be circumcised and keep the law. In other words, if it were up to the Jews, they would only spend time with people who were like them and who believed like them.
But, now, the Holy Spirit was indwelling uncircumcised, law-breaking Gentiles, and the ramifications of this indwelling was about to turn the Jewish-Christian’s view of the world upside down. They knew that they were required (by their common relationship to God and by the common indwelling of the Spirit) to not only spend time with these new Gentile Christians, but to treat them as brothers and sisters!
Outrageous! And, many of those Jewish Christians refused, fought, argued, kicked-and-screamed against this type of behavior. They knew exactly what this kind of acceptance meant. If the Jewish Christians accepted the Gentile Christians as brothers and sisters, then the Jewish Christians would have to admit that neither circumcision nor keeping the law were necessary for God’s acceptance.
Thousands of years of traditions and belief were about to be thrown out the window because God was accepting, saving, and indwelling Gentiles.
Now… today… what are we going to do when we recognize that God is accepting, saving, and indwelling people from different traditions and with different beliefs? Are we going to accept them? Or, are we going to refuse, fight, argue, kick-and-scream against the work that God is doing?
Can we admit that God can accept, save, and indwell people who do not have the same traditions, practices, and beliefs as us? Are we willing to admit that our traditions, practices, and beliefs are not necessary for God to accept, save, and indwell someone?