Edified Anyway
So, for the last two Sundays, I have not been able to meet with the church as usual. Last Sunday, we had a small family crisis that we need to deal with on Sunday morning. Nothing major… but we needed to stop and talk about a few things. Then, this Sunday, because of my eye, I was too tired to go anywhere. In fact, I slept most of the weekend. I didn’t realize my eye was taking so much out of me until I realized that I didn’t do much but sleep all weekend.
But, my family met with the church Sunday. And, they brought back greetings and concerns that not only demonstrated that people care about and love me, but they also brought back news that has thrilled me and encouraged me.
For example, a young couple gave us a “Thank You” note. They were simply thanking us for sharing our lives with them. We’ve enjoyed spending time with them and watching them start their new life together as husband and wife. While we haven’t been able to get together as much as we all would like because of schedules, our family is looking forward to accepting their invitation to dinner soon.
Also, the wife of this couple has asked if she can teach a Bible study for our daughter and other girls around her age. We’re excited about the prospects of the Bible study, but we’re even more excited that Miranda will be spending more time with this young lady. She is an excellent example for Miranda to follow both as a young lady and as a wife. Plus, it will be good for Miranda to spend time talking about faith with other people.
Finally, a young man asked Margaret if Jeremy could come to his house this week to hang out. I don’t know if there will be other people there (i.e. other teenagers) or not. But, we’re also excited about the prospects of Jeremy spending time with some young men who can help him grow in his faith and mature as a young man.
So, even though I haven’t been able to meet with the church for the last two Sundays, the church continues to edify and encourage me by their service to us and to one another. I could give other examples as well, but these are the ones that most affect us and our family right now. I thank God for my family – my wife and children, and also my brothers and sisters in Christ. He has surrounded us with such wonderful examples and servants. We always look forward to how he uses them in our lives.
What is normative?
A friend in the PhD seminar in Hermeneutics is writing a paper about determining normative principles from biblical narrative in the New Testament. He is planning to use Acts 20:28-35 as a case study:
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” (Acts 20:28-35 ESV)
He plans to look at various methods of determining what is normative for us today in New Testament narrative. In the above example given by Paul to the elders of the church in Ephesus, the ideas of shepherding and protecting people are usually considered to be normative, while the idea of working in order to provide support for yourselves and others is not considered to be normative. (By the way, my friend is a paid pastor, and I’m looking forward to hearing about his conclusions.)
Another passage from a few lines earlier in Acts gives another interesting example of normative principles:
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7 ESV)
In this passage, gathering on the first day of the way is usually taken as normative, while gathering in order to eat (“break bread”) is not considered normative. Also, gathering to hear a “talk” or “speech” is considered normative, while gathering for a “discussion” (the literal and more common translation of “talk”) is not considered normative.
So, when reading biblical narrative like we find in Acts and the Gospels, how do we decide what is normative and what is not normative? Furthermore, when we read passages that we consider to be more “propositional” – like we find in Paul’s letters, for instance – how do we decide what is normative and what is cultural?
These are questions in which I am very interested. In fact, I’m hoping to write a paper on this subject later in the semester – perhaps tacking the discussion surrounding the terms “descriptive” and “prescriptive”.
It seems, in general, that if someone finds a “descriptive” or “narrative” section of Scripture that aligns with what they already believe or what they already practice, then they consider it to be normative. However, if someone reads a passage that does not align with what they already believe or practice – even if that passage is in a “propositional” statement – then that passage is considered “descriptive” or “culture”. Thus, it seems – again, in general – that methods of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) play a very small role in determining what is normative for most believers.
But, is this the way that we should approach Scripture? To be honest, I don’t know. I can tell you that I don’t like it because it is so subjective. Of course, anything that we decide will be subjective to some extent. But, I do believe there are ways to remove some subjectivity.
So, as I’m thinking about these questions, I thought that I would ask you, my readers, for your answers. How do you determine what, if anything, in a narrative passage is normative for today? How do you decide that something is either descriptive (or culture) or prescriptive?
Am I against church programs?
About a year ago, I wrote a post called “Am I against church programs?” in which I tried to explain my thoughts about programs in the church. Since my previous post concerned program and organization and institutionalization, I thought this would be a good time to review this older post. I hope you enjoy…
————————————————————
Am I against church programs?
Many times, I am asked, “Are you against church programs?” Some people, knowing that I do not stress church programs, also make a jump in logic and ask, “Why are you against church programs?”
My simple answer is, “I am neutral toward church programs.” In general, I am neither for church programs nor against church programs. Of course, in a time when churches define themselves by their programs (check out most church web sites), stating that I am not for church programs usually causes those who are for church programs to view me as the enemy – somehow against the work of God in their programs. But, this is not the case at all. I recognize that God works in many different ways, including through many programs. So, my neutral stance should not be recognized as being antagonistic toward church programs.
This then, usually brings up another question: “Why are you neutral toward church programs?”
The best way for me to answer this question is to turn to Scripture, specifically Mark 7:1-13:
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:1-13 ESV)
In this passage, Jesus deals specifically with traditions that had been handed down to and taught by the Pharisees. Notice that Jesus did not condemn these traditions, but neither did he promote them. However, Jesus did condemn any tradition that causes the individual or group to leave or reject the command of God.
Just to pick on a particular church program (tradition), let’s consider Sunday School. Sunday School is not a command of God. It is not required of believers to attend Sunday School. So, if we are not responsible for attending Sunday School, what are we responsible for? We are responsible to make disciples, to teach one another, to have fellowship with one another, to serve one another, etc. Many would say that these are the purposes of Sunday School. I agree that these are usually the purposes of Sunday School. But, when we teach “attending Sunday School” as a requirement for believers, then we are teaching our traditions instead of the commands of God, even though we may have held to our traditions as a means to keeping the commands of God.
Unfortunately, many times we teach people to hold to our traditions and to participate in our programs because the programs are easier to measure and control. For example, many times church organizations will use Sunday School attendance as a measure of discipleship. In the same way, the church organizations will control who can teach in their programs in order to protect from any instructions that would disagree with the stance of the organization. These programs and traditions, while probably started in order to help believers keep the commands of God, tend to replace the commands of God – either consciously or unconsciously – in the minds of the believers.
Thus, when asked if they are making disciples, believers can point to their attendance in Sunday School. When asked if they are evangelistic, they can point to the organization’s evangelism program. When asked if they are teaching their children to walk in the ways of God, they can point to their children’s ministry. When asked if they praise God, they can point to their participation in choir. When asked if they give to others who are in need, they can point to their tithes and offerings. When asked if they fellowship with other believers, they can point to their covered dish dinners. When asked if they worship God, they can point to their attendance at a Sunday morning meeting (“worship service”). However, while each of these programs may be means to helping believers obey God, attendance or participation are not the goal in and of themselves; and, furthermore, attendance or participation neither equates with obedience nor do they preclude the individual’s responsibility toward God and toward his fellow believers.
This does not mean that I think programs are inherently evil. Jesus did not condemn the traditions of the Pharisees in general, and I do not condemn programs in general. In fact, I have seen programs work very well. Usually, this happens when the program is organized for a specific and short-term purpose.
For example, if a family’s house is destroyed by fire, an organized program to help them with money, food, accommodations, etc. would be very beneficial. In this case, the “benevolence” program has a specific purpose: to help the church show kindness and to serve this family who is in need. When the need is met, then the program would stop. What usually happens, though, is that this “benevolence” program is continued after the need is met. Thus, we feel a need to continue to staff and maintain a “benevolence” committee or program which has no specific goal, other than show benevolence, which is the requirement of all believers, not just those in this program. The program becomes the goal, instead of the means to meeting a goal.
My friend Eric, from “Hammer and Nail“, described my position on church programs in a comment to his post called “Let Them See the Gospel“. He said:
I think one reason people outside the church may not see a living faith within the church is that we often rely on church programs to accomplish the work the individuals should be doing. I know that opens up a big “can of worms” about church programs. However, I think the connection is real. Programs, whether good or not so good, often lead people into shirking their personal responsibility to serve others by thinking that the church program will take care of it. Within the church, we need to talk much of personal responsibility to serve one another within the body and outside the body.
Thus, our goal should not be creating, promoting, staffing, and running church programs. Our goal should be discipleship, fellowship, evangelism, hospitality, service, etc. These things can happen within church programs. But, they can also be hindered when church programs become the focus and goal of our organizations. The church should focus on loving God and loving others through discipleship, fellowship, evangelism, hospitality, service, etc. instead of focusing on creating and maintaining programs.
A Resistant Organization
Thanks to Joe (JR) for pointing me to research that gives a name to the type of organization that we are part of. The researcher, Josh Packard, is studying organizations that resist the natural tendency to institutionalize. He calls these types of organizations “Resistant Organizations”.
This is how Josh describes his research:
My organizational interests focus on people who attempt to construct organizations which can manage to coordinate complex and repeated activities, such as worship services, without becoming institutionalized or relying on taken for granted patterns of thought and behavior. I call these organizations resistant organizations. Organizational theories suggest that as an organization grows or persists over time, its activities and structures will gradually come to resemble those of the dominant organizations in the field. I argue that it is possible to resist institutionalization by intentionally utilizing specific structures, organizational processes and developing ideologies which guard against the establishment of taken for granted patterns and routines. In the course of identifying these specific strategies and mechanisms I work toward a theory of organizational resistance. The result is a more accurate understanding of the range of organizational possibilities.
But, how does a church maintain organization without becoming institutionalized? Josh has some suggestions about that as well. He says the church should work through “the labor of the willing“:
Activities and events were not organized or put on by the church staff for the congregants, but rather the congregants organized events and gatherings for themselves. A labor force of the willing consists of three distinct components. First, activities are initiated by the congregants. Second, the activity is maintained without interference from the official church staff. Finally, in order to avoid institutionalization, the activity is allowed to end or dissolve when there is no longer sufficient interest from the organizer. In other words, relying on a labor force of the willing means that programs are not continued because “that’s the way things have always been done.”
While we haven’t had a name for it (until now), this is the way that we’ve tried to organize as a church. We encourage people to serve God and serve others using the gifts and opportunities that God provides. We as a church – and as church leaders – offer support and encouragement. We, as leaders, do not decided which program we will do as a church. Instead, the church decides how God wants them to serve. We, as leaders, are not responsible for making sure that everything happens. Instead, the church is responsible for serving God.
This has offered some great opportunities that the leaders never would have imagined. We have seen people serve in their workplaces, in their neighborhoods, in low income areas, in nursing homes, in nutrition, in health, in hospitality, in so many ways. And, the people were excited about what they were doing because it was “their” service. When the opportunity ended, then the “program” (for lack of a better term) ended as well. The people involved would then look for another way to serve God and serve others.
We’ve also had a few people who wanted to serve through “traditional” programs. We’ve had Bible studies, children’s Bible studies, and even a children’s choir. But, again, its the people who decide how they want to serve. The leaders do not choose methods of service and then try to recruit people to do the service. In fact, the leaders are also responsible for determining how God wants them (the leaders) to serve.
This method of service has led to some interesting conversations, especially with people who “visit” us from more traditional churches. Do you have children’s programs? Do you have youth programs? Do you have a visitation program? We then explain that we encourage people to serve however God has gifted them and in whatever opportunities God provides them. The church then offers support, whether it is training, financial, resources, etc. So, if someone wants to start something for children or youth or evangelism, then we would support that. This explanation is usually met with confusion.
Believers are not accustomed to deciding for themselves how to best serve God and serve others. Instead, they’re more accustomed to their leaders telling them how to serve God, and the trying to fit themselves into slots of service provided by the church. They are accustomed to leaders who function more as cheerleaders and recruitment officers than as fellow servants.
Yes, it is a different form of organization. But, it is a way to organize. And, like the researcher suggested, we’ve found that this form of organization and leadership helps the organization stay away from institutionalization.
Seeing your community through the "ideal" filter
Yesterday, I published a post called “Paul’s Vision for the Church“. In that post, I included this description of the church (from Andrew Chester, “The Pauline Communities”, in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology. ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997):
Paul’s vision for the communities that he wrote to can be summed up quite succinctly. He sees them as being a new creation in Christ, filled with the Spirit, possessing gifts of the Spirit and overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit, controlled above all by love; they are communities that should be pure and holy, mutually supportive and interdependent, completely united, transcending the oppositions and tensions between different groups within the community, and with every kind of barrier that would divide them in normal society broken down. (105)
This is certainly an “ideal” image of the church. But, I suggested that all communities of believers should strive for this ideal – not from their own abilities and methods, but by humbly admitting that they are not perfect and allowing the Holy Spirit to change them as he desires.
But, it is very difficult to “see” ourselves as we really are. It is often of great benefit to see ourselves from the perspectives of someone else – especially if it is someone who cares about us.
I think that Guy Muse, from “The M Blog“, has provided this valuable service for “traditional churches” in a post that he called “Seeing legacy churches through simple church eyes“. Guy observes and offers suggestions concerning 1) the Sunday morning sermon, 2) the offering, 3) Sunday School, 4) singing and praise, and 5) prayer. Notice that Guy is simply critiquing “traditional churches” from an idealistic or academic perspective. He has been part of simple churches in Ecuador for years. He recognizes some benefits of the churches that he’s participated in and would like to see believers in “traditional churches” come to know these same benefits.
Are those of us who are part of “traditional churches” willing to consider the perspective of someone like Guy? Are we willing to admit that we are not perfect and that there are ways that we could – and should – change to better reflect who we are as the people of God both to one another and to the world around us?
Then again, are those of us who are part of “simple churches” willing to be examined by someone who is part of a “traditional church”? Would “simple church” adherents be willing to admit that they could learn from those who are part of “legacy churches” in order to change to better reflect who they are as the people of God both to one another to to the world around us?
We can learn from one another… but only if we are willing to humble ourselves, listen to one another, and change where we need to change. It begins by admitting that we are not perfect. Then, it continues when we admit that we can learn from someone or some community that is different than we are.
Are we that humble yet? Perhaps we can start by seriously considering Guy’s observations and suggestions.
Paul’s Vision for the Church
In the book A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), the authors of the various essays attempt to describe the “vision” of the church described in different parts of Scripture as well as the apostolic fathers. Andrew Chester is assigned the task to describing Paul’s vision for the church in his chapter called “The Pauline Communities”. He begins his chapter like this:
Paul’s vision for the communities that he wrote to can be summed up quite succinctly. He sees them as being a new creation in Christ, filled with the Spirit, possessing gifts of the Spirit and overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit, controlled above all by love; they are communities that should be pure and holy, mutually supportive and interdependent, completely united, transcending the oppositions and tensions between different groups within the community, and with every kind of barrier that would divide them in normal society broken down. (105)
I think this is one of the best descriptions of the church that I have ever read. I know what some are thinking though: “This definition is too idealistic. Even the communities that Paul wrote to were not like this description.” And, you would be absolutely correct. No church will ever live up to this description. As Chester continues:
This brief summary may seem over-idealized; it may indeed seem somewhat grandiose and abstract, especially in the light of the occasional letter that Paul wrote to quite different communities, often on very specific and mundane issues… It is also to be said that theory and practice in any case often fail to coincide, and the way that a particular community lives can be very far removed from Paul’s vision of what it should be. Paul himself is made painfully aware of this. Indeed, it is probably true to say that we have a semblance of Paul’s vision for his communities, to a large extent, because of the problems that have arisen in a number of those communities and that Paul feels the need to counter. That is, Paul finds himself faced with what he considers false practice, or even a complete negation of his ideal of the Christian community, and hence has to urge those in these communities that he has founded to become what they know they should be, and not remain as they are. (105)
Chester makes a very important point in the beginning of his essay. First, from reading Paul’s letters, it does seem that Paul has an “ideal” for the church, and I believe that Chester’s description above succinctly captures Paul’s vision. Next, Paul recognizes that people do not live according to this ideal. Therefore, he often writes in order to correct specific areas where communities are failing to live according to this “ideal”. For the most part, we have to try to understand Paul’s ideal by reading his correctives, although there are many positive statements about the church in Paul’s letters as well.
There is a danger is calling Chester’s definition “idealistic”. Once we call something “idealistic”, it generally ceases to be our goal. Our vision is adjusted toward something that is “doable” or practical. But, in Scripture, Paul did not lower his goal because communities were not living up to the “ideal”. Instead, he continued to keep the “ideal” as his goal and, at the same time, continue to exhort the communities toward that vision.
As we compare our communities with Chester’s description of Paul’s vision, we should ask ourselves whether we are living as new creations in Christ, filled with the Spirit, exercising the gifts of the Spirit, producing the fruit of the Spirit, and controlled by love above all other things. We should seek to determine if our communities are pure and holy, and if we are supportive of and interdependent upon others. We should find out if oppositions and tensions are transcended and if normal social barriers are broken down.
If what if we fall short in one of these areas? That’s the wrong question. We will fall short. No community is perfect. The question is: what do we do when we recognize that we are falling short in one of these areas? Then we seek to move toward the “vision”, by allowing the Spirit to make us into a more mature community in Christ. What do we do if we do not see any failures in our community? We humble ourselves, repent, and acknowledge that pride is blinding us to who we really are. Every community needs to mature in some way. And, once a community has matured in that way, that community still needs to mature, perhaps in another aspect of their community life. Maturity will continue until we are made perfect in Christ on the last day.
There is a “vision” for the church in the New Testament. Perhaps it seems ideal. Perhaps it seems unrealistic. Perhaps its seems unmanageable. Perhaps it seems out of reach. These are all true, because we cannot do this on our own power and by our own methods. But, God can mature us through his Spirit into a community that is more like his Son. As a community, we can become more like the ideal – more Christ-like than we are now.
Toward Mutual Hermeneutics
Saturday, I published a post called “Mutual Hermeneutics“. I that post, I recalled a discussion in a PhD seminar on Hermeneutics concerning the fact that most believers do not practice hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) on their own. Instead, Christians tend to wait for teachers and leaders to interpret the Bible for them.
Concluding that post, I made one statement and asked four questions:
There seems to be a tendency in the church today that leaders are responsible for interpreting Scripture for everyone else. 1) Do you agree that this is a tendency? 2) If so, should something be done about this? 3) What can leaders do about this? 4) What can others (non-leaders) do about this?
There was a great response to this post – especially for a Saturday. So, I decided to respond to the comments and my own questions in a separate post.
First, I do believe that there is a tendency in the church today to leave interpretation up to the “professionals”. Second, I believe that this is a very unhealthy tendency. So, something should be done about it. But, what should we do?
As I consider what should and can be done to encourage mutual hermeneutics – that is, for the entire church to be involved in biblical interpretation – I recognize that churches meet in many different ways. There are many different teaching styles, learning styles, discipling styles, leadership styles, and organizational styles. Because of the variations, my suggestions will not make sense in some contexts. I recognize this, and I do not think that all churches should or even can meet in the same way that we meet. However, I think that all churches can consider and implement ways to encourage everyone to take part in biblical interpretation.
Certainly, we can move toward mutual hermeneutics by encouraging, exhorting, training, and expecting everyone to study Scripture for themselves. Likewise, modelling and explaining is very important. Since people teach and learn in different ways, those who are training others to interpret Scripture should use different methods themselves. But, these should be considered the first steps – and small steps – toward mutual hermeneutics.
The next step – and perhaps a more important step – is giving people opportunities to practice biblical interpretation and opportunities to present what they have learned. If any time is considered off-limits to anyone but the pastors, then people are taught by implication that they really can’t interpret Scripture for themselves. Yes, Bible studies are good contexts for those who want to begin interpreting and teaching Scriptures, but if we honestly want to encouraging mutual hermeneutics, then we should open “the pulpit” for any who wish to teach.
Yes, it is a scary proposition to allow anyone to teach the church. There are steps that can be taken to make this proposition less scary. Those who are comfortable studying and teaching Scripture to the church can help train those who want to learn. Similarly, we should not expect everyone to use our teaching or study methods. Homiletics and professionalism are not necessary to communicate God’s truth to God’s people. The most important aspect of teaching is life transformation – actually living what is being taught.
If the idea of allowing “anyone” to teach is just too much, then consider teaching teams. There are many ways to implement teaching teams. 1) Have a different person teach each week. 2) Have each person teach two or three weeks at a time, then rotate. 3) Have different people teach shorter lessons during the same church meeting. Either way, you are explicitly teaching people that they can interpret Scripture for themselves.
Giving other people opportunities to teach means that some pastors will need to give up “the pulpit” – even when they are present. This, in itself, is an excellent example for people. Pastors and leaders should be learners as well as teachers. What better model for the people than a pastor who is willing to learn along with others.
Another positive way of encouraging mutual hermeneutics is to allow people to discuss the teaching or “sermon”. Some people are not willing or able to adjust the “worship schedule”, so consider having a discussion period at another time, perhaps even during lunch immediately following the “worship service”. Discussion was certainly a part of early church meetings, and I think that spiritual growth has been hindered by adapting a monologue type meeting.
Humility – especially on the part of leaders – is also important in encouraging mutual hermeneutics. Leaders must be willing to seriously consider viewpoints and perspectives that are different than their own. If all interpretations that differ from the pastors’ interpretations are dismissed with consideration, then people will soon learn not to try to interpret Scripture on their own.
Finally, for all of us, we should seek to understand Scripture on our own, and we should expect that our brothers and sisters are seeking to understand Scripture on their own. We must be willing to share with one another what God is teaching us through Scripture, and we must be willing to ask others what God is teaching them. If someone never wants to talk about Scripture, then there may be a problem. This is a good opportunity for discipleship and to help someone begin to study Scripture on their own.
All of this presupposes relationship. Allowing “anyone” to teach assumes that we have relationships with the people who will be teaching. Through relationships we help one another interpret Scripture, we know how they are living their lives, we know if what they say matches what they do, we are willing to speak up when they say something heretical (not different… heretical), we are willing to help them mature, and we are willing to let them help us mature.
Today, in the church, relationship is rare. We tend to deal with one another from position instead of relationships. If we want to see mutual hermeneutics develop in the church, we must have mutuality first – relationship.
Sermons are powerful way to communicate information about God. However, in reality, most sermons that are heard are usually forgotten within a few days – if not a few hours. However, someone who studies Scripture for themselves, who allows the Spirit to transform their lives toward what they are studying, and who then teaches that to others both through their words and their lives remembers what God did in them and through them.
In what other ways can we encourage all believers toward mutual hermeneutics?
Mutual Hermeneutics
I’m in a PhD seminar in Hermeneutics with Dr. Andreas Köstenberger. Hermeneutics is the science and art of interpreting the Bible. In this particular seminar class, we were discussing historical narrative – primarily, historical narrative in the Old Testament. We talked briefly about discovering normative principles within historical narrative.
Dr. Köstenberger suggested that one of the reasons that people have a hard time determining what is normative from narrative is that people do not practice biblical interpretation. Instead, they leave interpretation up to their pastor, teacher, favorite author, etc. This started a lively and informative discussion concerning how the church can help all members practice biblical interpretation.
There were many, many suggestions, from having training sessions for teachers to individual discipleship, from explaining our method of interpretation from the “pulpit” to allowing others (not seminary trained) to teach “from the pulpit”.
There seems to be a tendency in the church today that leaders are responsible for interpreting Scripture for everyone else. 1) Do you agree that this is a tendency? 2) If so, should something be done about this? 3) What can leaders do about this? 4) What can others (non-leaders) do about this?
Didache on loving God and loving others
The Didache (“Teaching”) is one of the earliest Christian writings, probably written in the late first or early second century. (Here is an English translation.) The first chapter reads as follows:
There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there for loving those who love you? Do not the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If someone strikes your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one who asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he who gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless. Woe to him who receives; for if one receives who has need, he is guiltless; but he who receives not having need shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what. And coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape from there until he pays back the last penny. And also concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.
Did you notice that the author begins with the command to love God and love others, but then his exhortations shift to how we demonstrate love toward others. Why do you think the author did this? Was he wrong in his focus?
Begging to be used…
God has placed so many wonderful people in my life. I like to introduce my readers to them whenever possible.
One of those people is Amber who blogs at “an examined life“. In her latest post, called “From My Heart“, Amber describes part of journey as she prepared to move overseas to proclaim the good news. She plans to go overseas as a missionary with the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention. As she prepared, she had hoped to move to Rome, but the positions in Rome filled before she could claim one. I love the way Amber responded to this challenge. She explains:
Some of you know that I recently found out they no longer have a job for me in Rome. This has definitely been a blow since it has been on my mind and heart for the last 7 months. Once again, I felt like God was giving me all green lights and then slammed them red at the last minute! (I repented of this by-the-way!) It is so hard to see what God is doing in the midst of confusing situations, but there is something specific he has revealed, obliterated, and is now reconstructing in my heart.
Throughout the IMB process, they ask you in every form possible how you know you are called to missions. I have seen God’s hand leading me to this point for many reasons (that I won’t go into now) and I have known for a while that the Lord wanted me to “go.” I was following him in obedience and submission. That’s how its supposed to be, right? Yes, but there is more…
When I lost the Rome job, the cry of my heart dramatically changed. It was no longer, “okay, God, I’ll follow you in obedience where ever you have me” but “Oh, God, please send me!” I was no longer “allowing” myself to be used by him, I was begging.
If only this could be the cry of all of our hearts… We don’t deserve it, but God, would you use us? Today? Wherever we are? To whomever we meet?